REPORT TO: Special Meeting of Council AGENDA ITEM: 11
DATE OF 20 March 2007 CATEGORY: MEETING: DELEGATED
REPORT FROM: Deputy Chief Executive OPEN
MEMBERS’ Gill Hague DOC: CONTACT POINT: 5742
SUBJECT: Joint Planning Inquiry – Strategic REF: Housing Sites (Derby Sub-Area)
WARD(S) Willington & Findern, Stenson, TERMS OF AFFECTED: Aston REFERENCE: DC01
1 Recommendation
1.1 Members approve the content of this report as the Council’s Inquiry Statement in relation to appeals involving proposals for housing development on five sites within the Derby Sub-Area which are to be determined by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government following a joint public local inquiry commencing on 15th May 2007.
2 Purpose of Report
2.1 To inform Members of the various appeal proposals and to seek their approval of the Report as the Council’s Inquiry Statement, which will then form the basis of the Council’s case at the public local inquiry.
3 Executive Summary
3.1 A public local inquiry into Appeals relating to major housing applications on 5 sites in the Derby Sub-Area will commence on 15th May 2007.
3.2 This Report informs Members of the appeal applications and seeks approval of the Report as the Council’s Inquiry Statement which will then form the basis of the Council’s case at the inquiry.
3.3 The Report analyses the need for additional housing in the Derby Sub- Area and concludes that the Sub-Area land supply position supports the release of one site in South Derbyshire. This is an interim measure that should ensure a robust land supply position up to 2013 by providing Page 1 of 72 1 sufficient, rather than too much, land. During this time, work will be ongoing to ensure completion of the LDF process to identify sites to meet need beyond that date.
3.4 The Report recommends that the Council should submit to the Secretary of State that its preferred order of release of sites to meet housing need in the Derby Sub-area 2008-2013 is:
o Based on a need for 1,000 dwellings - Boulton Moor;
o Based upon a need for up to 1,500 dwellings - Boulton Moor and Stenson Fields (subject to the ability to deliver the required number of dwellings. In the event of a shortfall, seek to bring forward Highfields Farm)
o Based upon a need for up to 2,000 dwellings - Boulton Moor, Stenson Fields and Highfields Farm (partial development)
4 Background to the Appeals
4.1 Further to the withdrawal of the Replacement South Derbyshire Local Plan on 19th May 2005 the Council has received applications for planning permission in relation to the following sites all of which were either proposed to be allocated in the Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan or promoted as objection sites at the Local Plan Inquiry held between June 2003 and February 2004:
(i) Willington Power Station (950-1000 dwellings); (ii) Highfields Farm (1200 dwellings) (iii) Wragley Way (850 Dwellings) (iv) Boulton Moor (1058 dwellings) (v) Stenson Fields (500 dwellings)
4.2 Appeals have been submitted to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government against the Council’s failure to determine the applications in relation to (i)-(iv) above and the remaining application have been refused under delegated powers and an appeal submitted to the Secretary of State against such refusal to enable all of the outstanding appeals to be determined together by the Secretary of State.
4.3 A joint public inquiry into the various appeals is scheduled to commence on 15th May 2007 and is anticipated to last 11 weeks. An Inspector, Mr Harold Stephens, has been appointed by the Secretary of State to conduct the Public Inquiry and to report to the Secretary of State who will decide which, if any, of the appeal sites should be granted planning permission.
4.4 The Council will be represented at the Public Inquiry by Mr Hugh Richards of Counsel instructedPage by 2 ofMarrons 72 solicitors. Given the impact 2 of the appeal proposals on the social and highways infrastructure of Derby City, Counsel will also be representing the interests of the City Council (as planning and highway authority), Derbyshire County Council (as highway authority) and the Highways Agency at the public inquiry.
4.5 The recommendations contained in this Report are those of Mr Richard Wood (MRTPI) of Framptons Town Planning Limited, who has been appointed to act as the Council’s planning consultant and witness in relation to these appeals. Mr Wood’s recommendations are to be considered in the same way as recommendations made by your own officers. Accordingly, whilst members are not obliged to follow the recommendations in this Report the Council could be at risk as to costs at the joint public inquiry if it did not have reasonable planning grounds for taking a decision contrary to the same.
5 The need for housing development in the Derby Sub-Area
Planning Policy Background
5.1 Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (November 2006) sets out the Government’s objective to ensure that the planning system delivers a flexible, responsive supply of land. Reflecting the principles of ‘Plan, Monitor, Manage’, Local Planning Authorities are advised to develop policies and implementation strategies to ensure that sufficient, suitable land is available to achieve their housing and previously-developed land delivery objectives.
5.2 At the local level LPAs are required to set out in Local Development Documents their policies and strategies for delivering the level of housing provision, including identifying broad locations and specific sites that will enable continuous delivery of housing for at least 15 years from the date of adoption, taking account of the level of housing provision set out in the Regional Spatial Strategy. In circumstances where RSS are in development, or subject to review, LPAs should also have regard to the level of housing provision as proposed in the relevant emerging RSS.
5.3 There is no current Local Development Document that delivers the above policy requirement for South Derbyshire District. The Adopted South Derbyshire Local Plan (May 1998) provided only for the housing requirement for the District in the period 1987-2001 as set out in the previous Structure Plan, and the draft Replacement Local Plan (2003) which would have delivered the housing requirement for the District emanating from the current adopted Structure Plan (i.e. for the period 1991-2011), was withdrawn prior to adoption.
5.4 Whilst the Council is committed to putting in place a Local Development Framework to cover the period beyond 2011, it is necessary in the meantime to ensure that there is at least a continuous five year supply of deliverable sites for housing as required by the current Structure Plan (see further below). PPS3Page provides3 of 72 that where LPAs cannot 3 demonstrate an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites, for example where Local Development Documents have not yet been reviewed to take into account policies in the PPS or there is less than five years supply of deliverable sites, they should consider favourably planning applications for housing, having regard to the policies in PPS3.
5.5 At a strategic level RSS8 sets out the required annual rate of housing provision for each structure plan area for the period 2001-2021 including, for the Derby and Derbyshire structure plan area 2,550 houses per annum. These figures represent net increases in dwellings, no allowance being made for demolitions which are assumed replaced on a one-for-one basis. LPAs, developers and other agencies are advised to work jointly across administrative boundaries to ensure the release of sites is managed in the interests of sustainable development. The built up area of Derby is identified in the policy as a priority area for action in this regard. The RSS sets a regional target of 60% for re-use of previously developed land and buildings for additional dwellings (including conversions).
5.6 The Draft East Midlands Plan (RSS8), emerging RSS published in September 2006 identifies the required regional housing provision for each District and Unitary authority area for the period between 2001 and 2026. The average annual rates detailed for Derby and South Derbyshire are 700 and 605 dwellings respectively, again 60% of which are expected to be delivered on previously developed land. Housing provision is to be monitored annually and reviewed at least every five years.
5.7 The emerging RSS also states that LPAs, developers and others should work across administrative boundaries in the Region’s Housing Market Areas (HMAs) to ensure that the release of sites is managed to achieve a sustainable pattern of development.
5.8 Unlike the Adopted RSS, however, the emerging East Midlands Plan sets out the distribution of housing provision for each HMA over the period 2001-26. Housing within the Derby HMA is proposed at a rate of 1770 dwellings per annum of which 980 dwellings should be within or adjoining the Derby Principal Urban Area (PUA). Derby City is proposed at a rate of 700 dwellings per annum, all contributing to the PUA requirement. South Derbyshire is proposed at the rate of 605 dwellings per annum, of which 255 dws pa should be sustainable urban extensions to the Derby PUA, contributing to the 980 requirement. Development in the remainder of the District will be focused primarily on Swadlincote, including urban extensions as necessary.
5.9 The policies in the Adopted Structure Plan (2001) are development plan policies prepared under the previous planning system that are automatically ‘saved’ until 27 September 2007. The Plan makes provision for 66,900 dwellings to be built within the period 1991-2011. This is an aggregation of the Sub Area provisions. The Plan’s housing provisions include allowances for anticipated demolitions. Page 4 of 72 4 5.10 Adequate land provision is required to be made for housing development in total and for the City and each District Council area. Such provision will seek to ensure that a five year supply of land is available at all times. In accordance with principles of sustainable development the Plan seeks to ensure as much of the housing provision as possible is made within urban areas.
5.11 The Derby Sub Area is defined as the City and a large surrounding area taking in parts of Amber Valley, Derbyshire Dales, Erewash and South Derbyshire. The total provision for the Derby Sub Area over the period 1991 - 2011 is 24,000 dwellings (1300 in Amber Valley, 15,500 in Derby, 300 in Derbyshire Dales, 400 in Erewash, and 6,500 in South Derbyshire
Analysis
5.12 Against the above planning policy background, the following scenarios have been considered in order to assess the current need for housing development in South Derbyshire District.
5.13 Scenario 1: Derby and Derbyshire Structure Plan
What are the housing land requirements of the Structure Plan and are these being met?
5.13.1 Structure Plan provision for South Derbyshire District (as a whole) is 12000 houses 1991 -2011, divided as follows between two sub areas: Swadlincote 5,500 and Derby 6,500. The overall current position for the District is set out below.
Page 5 of 72 5
Dwellings Swadlincote Derby Sub- South Sub-Area Area Derbyshire Joint Structure Plan Requirement 1991- 5,500 6,500 12,000 2011
Dwellings completed 1 April 1991- 31 4,713 4,283 8,996 March 2006 (per AMR)
Dwellings under construction as at 31 163 159 322 March 2006
Dwellings with planning permission 899* 490 1,389 expected to be built as at 31 March 2006 (2006-2011)(less 10% discounted)
Dwellings granted permission 31 March 157 213 370 2006 – 28 February 2007(less 10% discounted)
Adopted Local Plan Allocations without 0 100** 100 planning permission
Total Supply 5,932 5,245 11,177
* Swadlincote Lane partially discounted: Assumption that 523 dwngs will not be built until after 2011 ** Lucas Lane discounted. No application for planning permission received.
5.13.2 There is, therefore, a projected shortfall in the Derby sub area of 1255 dwellings and a potential surplus in Swadlincote of 432 dwellings.
5.13.3 The South Derbyshire provision for Derby Sub Area is part of a wider requirement set out by the Structure Plan covering the whole of Derby City and parts of four districts (see paragraph 4.11 above). The land supply position for each component is set out below:
Page 6 of 72 6
Derby Sub Area – Structure Plan Housing Need and Supply
Provision Built 1991 - Expected Total Surplus/ 1991 - 2011 2006 to be built Supply Deficit 2006 - 11 South 6500 4283 962 5245 -1255 Derbyshire Derby 15500 11656 5267* 16923 +1423 Amber 1300 330 455** 785 -515 Valley Erewash 400 337 136 473 +73 D. Dales 300 282 35 317 +17 Derby Sub 24000 16888 6855 23743 -257 Area
* Discount applied on basis of deferral of 2313 dwellings post 2011 and reduction of 10% in remaining sites not yet started ** 300 dwellings at Radbourne Lane deferred post 2011 – all other sites assumed as coming forward
5.13.4 The figures in the table exclude windfall allowances and are based on updates of the trajectories and other information contained in the relevant Annual Monitoring Reports (AMRs). Account has been taken of planning permissions issued since April 2006 in South Derbyshire and Derby City. Allowances have been made for the deferral of some completions beyond 2011 and a 10% discount for possible non- implementation in South Derbyshire and Derby City.
Conclusion under Scenario 1
5.13.5 Looking at the Derby Sub area as a whole therefore, the table suggests that the Structure Plan requirement will be 257 houses short by 2011, with additional housing in Derby City, Erewash and Derbyshire Dales partially offsetting shortfalls in South Derbyshire and Amber Valley.
5.14 Scenario 2: RSS8
What are the requirements of RSS8 and are these being met?
5.14.1 There are no district level housing figures in RSS8, but provision is made for 2550 dwellings per annum in Derby and Derbyshire over the period 2001 – 2021. It is possible to disaggregate the County wide RSS figure by applying the distribution provided for in the approved Structure Plan. The RSS represents a 76.2% reduction from the Structure Plan annual rates for each component of the Derby Sub Area.
5.14.2 The table below sets out the disaggregated RSS provision against net completions 2001 – 06. Page This enables7 of 72 the calculation of the annual 7 residual housing requirements in terms of the RSS for each part of the sub area.
RSS based RSS Net Residual Annual annual Provision dwellings requirement residual provision 2001- 2021 built 2001 - 2006 -2021 RSS (76.2% of 06 requirement SP) S Derbys 248 4960 1309 3651 243 Derby 591 11820 3345 8475 565 A Valley 50 1000 131 869 58 Erewash 15 300 75 225 15 D Dales 11 220 92 128 9 Sub Area 915 18300 4952 13348 890
5.14.3 These RSS-based annual residual requirements can be used to provide a five year supply requirement against which supply can be assessed. The five year requirement could be based at April 2007, looking ahead to 2012, but it needs to be borne in mind that a decision on the appeal applications is not likely until spring 2008. In addition, District wide site allocation DPDs for South Derbyshire and Derby are not programmed for adoption until 2011, although significant additional housing land will potentially be available in Derby City Centre after adoption of an Area Action Plan in 2009. On balance, the most robust approach would be to consider land supply up to 2013, thereby incorporating the period 2008 – 13 as the five year supply period.
5.14.4 The following table assesses housing supply against RSS 8 requirements to 2013.
Housing need and supply to 2013 – RSS 8 Based
RSS requirement Anticipated Supply Surplus/Deficit 2006 – 2013 2006 -2013 ( 7 years) S Derbys 1701 962 -739 Derby 3955 6401* +2446 A Valley 406 655** +249 Erewash 105 136 +31 D Dales 63 35 -28 Derby Sub Area 6230 8189 +1959
* Discount applied on basis of 826 dwellings deferred beyond 2013 and reduction of 10% for remaining sites not yet started. ** 100 dwellings deferred post 2013
Page 8 of 72 8 Conclusion under Scenario 2
5.14.5 On the basis of this RSS compliant approach there is a more than adequate land supply to 2013 across the Derby sub area, with the deficit in South Derbyshire offset by surpluses in Derby and elsewhere.
5.15 Scenario 3: RSS8 and Structure Plan combined
5.15.1 A ‘hybrid’ RSS and Structure Plan housing land assessment to 2013 is also possible. This involves calculating a revised RSS residual requirement for the period 2011 – 13, allowing for completions 2001- 06 and the outstanding Structure Plan requirement to 2011 as set out in the following table.
Built Outstanding Built and SP RSS RSS residual RSS 2001 - 06 Structure outstanding provision requirement residual Plan need 2001 - 2021 2011 -21 2011 -13 2006 - 11 S Derbys 1309 2217 3526 4960 1434 286 Derby 3345 3844 7189 11820 4631 926 A Valley 131 970 1101 1000 -101 -20 Erewash 75 63 138 300 162 32 D Dales 92 18 110 220 110 22 Derby 4952 7112 12064 18300 6236 1246 Sub Area
Conclusion under Scenario 3
5.15.2 The Structure Plan need 2006 -2011 and the RSS residual requirement 2011 -13 are combined in the table below to give a hybrid RSS/Structure Plan requirement against which land supply can be assessed. On this basis there is a deficit of 169 dwellings.
Outstanding RSS Total Need Anticipated Surplus/deficit Structure residual 2006 - 13 Supply Plan need need 2006 - 13 2006 - 11 2011 -13 S Derbys 2217 286 2503 962 -1541 Derby 3844 926 4770 6401 +1631 A Valley 970 -20 950 655 -295 Erewash 63 32 95 136 +41 D Dales 18 22 40 35 -5 Derby Sub 7112 1246 8358 8189 -169 Area
Page 9 of 72 9 5.16 Scenario 4: RSS Review
5.16.1 Finally the East Midlands Regional Plan Review provides a further basis for assessing land supply. Policies are included for annual housing provision over the period 2001 - 26 based on the Derby Principal Urban Area, which is a narrower definition than the Derby Sub Area. The table below sets out an assessment of the 2006 - 13 housing supply against the residual RSS Review need for the Derby PUA and its constituent components.
RSS Rev Net Residual Residual Anticipated Surplus/ req’ment completions requirement requirement supply Deficit 2001-26 2001 - 06 2006 - 26 2006 -13 2006 - 13
S 6375 155 6220 2177 114 -2063 Derbys Derby 17500 3345 14155 4956 6401 +1455
Amber 625 0 625 217 500 + 283 Valley Derby 24500 3500 21000 7350 7015 - 335 PUA
Conclusion under Scenario 4
5.16.2 This table shows a deficit in terms of the RSS Review requirement of 335 dwellings.
5.17 Overall conclusions on housing need
5.17.1 Looking at South Derbyshire in isolation, there is a supply deficit against all the benchmarks, ranging from 739 dwellings against the current RSS8, to 2,063 dwellings for the RSS review. This would imply a need to release 2- 3 sites depending on which sites are preferred and which benchmark is considered most appropriate.
5.17.2 However, Policy 19 of RSS 8 indicates that the release of housing sites should be managed across administrative boundaries in the interests of sustainability, which points to the need to consider housing land supply across the wider Derby area.
5.17.3 There is a substantial land supply in the City of Derby, the majority of which is in the form of brownfield sites. There are strong sustainability arguments for brownfield sites in the city to come forward before greenfield sites in South Derbyshire, provided that overall housing targets for the wider Derby area are still met.
5.17.4 If the Derby Sub Area is considered as a whole, the expected supply in Derby can go a long way towards offsetting the supply deficit in South Page 10 of 72 10 Derbyshire. There is no deficit in the Derby Sub Area against the current RSS, but there are modest deficits against the other benchmarks, the largest being the RSS Review (335 dwellings).
5.17.5 It is therefore considered that the Derby Sub Area land supply position supports the release of one site in South Derbyshire. This is an interim measure that should ensure a robust land supply position up to 2013 by providing sufficient, rather than too much, land. During this time, work will be ongoing to ensure completion of the LDF process to identify sites to meet need beyond that date.
6 The Appeal Proposals
6.1 WILLINGTON POWER STATION
The Appeal Proposal
6.1.1 The proposal is to develop a mixed-use scheme comprising residential, employment and ancillary retail/community development, together with the provision of significant areas of open space, on the site of the former Willington Power Station. A copy of the illustrative Master plan is attached to the planning statement.
6.1.2 The proposal seeks to facilitate pedestrian permeability through the site to Findern Primary School in the east and Willington in the west. Significant areas of open space are included to provide a structural landscape framework to the site, accommodate open space needs, and enhance existing site features, such as the informal nature conservation area to the west of Findern Primary School.
6.1.3 In pursuance of sustainable development objectives, the appellants suggest that the proposed mix of uses will ensure a balanced development, integrating jobs and housing. Residential development comprising 950 - 1,000 dwellings is proposed, with up to 20% being affordable housing. Up to 10,000 m2 of employment floor space on a site of approximately 3ha of land will also be provided, comprising B1, B2 or/and B8 uses. A local centre, public open space, (including play / activity areas for all age groups distributed throughout the site) and a primary school extension to Findern Primary School would also be included. Associated infrastructure would include new road junctions and other off-site improvements within the existing highway network, new internal roads, footpaths and cycle ways.
6.1.4 Information sought pursuant to Regulation 19 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations relating to Ecology and traffic Impact Assessment is still outstanding. Additionally, information relating to Building Communities is still outstanding
Page 11 of 72 11 Site Description
6.1.5 The Willington Power Station site is located on the eastern fringe of Willington, South Derbyshire. The site is currently accessed from the A5132 Twyford Road; approximately 1 km to the north lies the A50 (T), providing dual carriageway access to Stoke on Trent and the M1. The site is also bordered by the Derby to Birmingham main railway line that provides both passenger and freight rail services. The site amounts to some 76.61 hectares (189 acres) with a relatively flat topography. To the south of the site lies the River Trent.
6.1.6 Immediately to the west of the site is a series of operational sub stations forming part of the national grid provided with structural landscaping. Also adjacent to the western boundary of the site is the Willington Power Station Sports and Social Club. This merges into the existing urban fabric of Willington, a settlement focused upon its central road junctions and moving out from its historic core along Twyford Road towards the power station, with extensive residential development heading eastwards along this road.
6.1.7 To the immediate north of the site lies the Birmingham to Derby railway line and beyond that the Trent and Mersey Canal. The area between the railway and the canal consists of small fields with maintained hedgerows. Beyond this is an area of gentle rolling farmland, used extensively for arable production, leading up to the A50 and the large Toyota Car factory.
6.1.8 To the east lies a low-lying agricultural area subdivided by lanes with frequently overgrown hedgerows. To the south of the site lies the River Trent and Trent Floodplain, a predominantly rural area criss-crossed by power lines and the meandering River Trent.
Information submitted with the Application
6.1.9 The Master plan, submitted in support of the application, is prepared in accordance with the latest Government guidance on urban design to ensure the creation of an attractive and sustainable development. The redevelopment of the former Willington Power Station will bring into beneficial use a derelict brownfield site, providing a balanced and sustainable development. The Master plan is developed in response to comments from consultees and the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment.
6.1.10 A planning statement that identifies the planning framework within which the planning application should be considered accompanies the application. It addresses the rationale for development and the benefits it will bring to the existing settlement. An Environmental Impact Assessment covering issues such as Social Infrastructure, Ground Conditions and Remediation, Flooding and Drainage, Ecology, Landscape Character, Transport, Noise, Air Quality, Archaeology and Page 12 of 72 12 Cultural Heritage Physical Infrastructure and Demolition and Construction also supports the application.
6.1.11 In the context of South Derbyshire, the proposal forms an extension to the existing settlement of Willington and provides a mix of uses, a range of housing tenures and a substantial improvement to local facilities (particularly public transport and open space) creating a more sustainable settlement. The complete documents are available for inspection in the Planning Department and have been lodged in the respective Members’ rooms for information.
6.1.12 In the light of the above, the appellants consider that the proposed development accords with national, regional and local policy. In particular they argue that it performs well against the criteria set out in Paragraph 31 PPG3 (Housing) and therefore must be a priority over alternative greenfield sites1. Furthermore, they state that the development adopts the principles of high quality design to create a scheme which accords with government advice.
6.1.13 It is the appellants’ view that this proposal meets planning objectives of sustainable development, will meet the requirements of regional and local policy and provide substantial local benefits, and for these reasons, the planning application should be supported.
Planning History
6.1.14 There is little significant development control history relating to the site other than alterations to the power station. The power station itself was constructed in two phases, the first from 1954-1957 and the second 1957-1959. Power generation utilised the whole site until 1999. Since 1999, most of the existing structures (except the cooling towers) have been removed and the site remains derelict.
6.1.15 The Revised Deposit Draft Replacement South Derbyshire Local Plan published in January 2003 proposed the allocation of 27 ha of land at Willington Power Station for housing, together with 5 ha of land for employment. As the Report into objections to the Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan published in November 2004 (“The Local Plan Inspectors Report”) did not comply with the Statutory requirements (not having been a report of the person holding the public inquiry into objections), however, the Council resolved on 19 May 2005 to withdraw the South Derbyshire Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan and instead proceed with the preparation of the Local Development Framework.
6.1.16 The Council has subsequently resolved that it will not seek to rely upon, or refer to, any part of the Local Plan Inspectors Report in respect of the consideration of any of the appeals which are before the joint public inquiry.
1 Note however that PPG3 (Housing) has, since the submission of the application, been superseded by Planning Policy Statement PPS3 – see ParagraphsPage 13 5 and of 728 and Appendix E. 13 Responses to Consultations
6.1.17 A full summary of the consultation responses can be found at Appendix A.
The East Midlands Regional Assembly – considers the site remote from infrastructure and may not be a suitable site for major housing development when alternative sites exist in Derby City. The East Midlands Development Agency states that the sustainability of the site needs to be carefully considered. The County Planning Authority objects to the application. It considers that all of the extant applications should be considered as a whole rather than in isolation. Willington Parish Council objects to the development, as the site is divorced from the village itself and is unsustainable. Road access is subject to flooding, congestion; Buckford Lane is entirely unsuitable to take the additional traffic flows. The site floods and would result in the loss of flood plain. The Highways Agency initially directed that the Authority should not determine the application pending the Agency’s consideration of the impact of the development on the A38 and A50 Trunk roads and their associated junctions. Updated comments from the Agency, based upon an Initial review of the DATS model outputs have now been received. The County Highway Authority has insufficient information to assess the impact of the development in relation both to access, impact on the wider highway network and public transport. The County Archaeologist has no objection subject to conditions. The Environment Agency has no objection subject to conditions and draws attention to the presence of tipped materials. Severn Trent Water has no objection subject to the submission of the details of the foul and surface water disposal. It is noted that the developers would need to requisition new sewers and treatment capacity to serve the development. The Countryside Agency does not wish to comment on the application as it is not nationally significant. English Nature has no objection subject to conditions to protect areas of interest within the site. The Derbyshire Wildlife Trust objects to some of the areas to be lost and has serious concerns about the proposed mitigation measures. Sport England supports the principle of the application. British Waterways would wish to see recreation facilities enhanced through Section 106 contributions. Network Rail would wish to see improvements to Willington Station funded by the development to improve disabled access National Grid states that there is a long-term need for its assets at Willington to be retained as it forms an integral part of the national grid The Environmental Protection Manager considers additional information is necessary to deal with contaminants on the site. Page 14 of 72 14 The Crime Prevention and Design Advisor notes that the police would be pleased to comment on any subsequent reserved matters applications should the development be permitted. The PCT has indicated that it would require contributions towards the enhancement of health provision in this part of South Derbyshire and it would be happy to pursue this with the developers.
Responses to Publicity
6.1.18 A full summary of the responses to publicity can be found at Appendix B
Mark Todd MP objects to the development of the site on the basis that:
a) There are more appropriate sites available (Boulton Moor) b) Buckford Lane is wholly unsuitable as a main access c) The rail station option makes little sense d) It would threaten existing shops. e) Drainage issues remain a concern. f) Whilst provision is made for primary school provision there is little evidence of secondary provision. g) More work is required to develop the health provision for a scheme of this size. h) The site needs an alternative use and a brief should be prepared that looks at alternatives to housing and employment.
Toyota has commented that it would normally welcome proposals to create employment and improve the local environment but there are a number of concerns relating to the Willington Proposal: -
a) It would be misleading to construe that existing jobs at Toyota create a need for additional local housing. Toyota has a stable workforce of 4,400 and most members live within a 30-mile radius from the Burnaston site. b) The company was surprised to note that the proposed bus route would be via ‘Toyota’, this has not been discussed with the company. c) The potential traffic generation at the A38/A50 interchange needs careful consideration from a safety perspective. d) The company would wish to be notified when the cooling towers are demolished so any impact on its members can be minimised.
A total of 286 letters of objection have been received, raising the following issues:
o village structure/character o archaeological/nature conservation issues o contamination o planning application submission o planning history & issues o housing Page 15 of 72 15 o employment o pollution o transport o social infrastructure o drainage o alternative uses should be considered
One letter of support has been received on the basis that the use for housing would be preferable to the use of the site for waste disposal.
6.2 HIGHFIELDS FARM
The Appeal Proposal
6.2.1 The proposal comprises up to 1200 residential units, new Primary School (up to 1.3 hectares), new community facilities (up to 1 hectare including local retail units (A1), restaurants (A3), Public House (A4), and Hot Food Take Away (A5), associated infrastructure (including sewers, drainage and services), new road junctions with the existing highway network, new internal roads, footpaths and cycle ways, play areas, strategic landscaping (up to 10.96 hectares), and the provision of a new Country Park (up to 8.42 hectares).
6.2.2 With regard to scale and massing, the appellants state that the Environmental Statement (ES) submitted with the application has been undertaken on the basis of building areas and heights as set out in the Development Parameters Assessment Plans for the site enclosed as Figures 2.1 and 2.3 in the ES and in the Design and Access Statement. This approach it is argued is essential in ensuring robustness of the ES conclusions especially in respect of the assessment of Visual Impacts of the proposed development.
6.2.3 Information sought pursuant to Regulation 19 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations in respect of Traffic Impact Assessment is still outstanding
The Site and its Surroundings
6.2.4 The application site currently comprises both pasture and arable agricultural fields, with Application Site Two also including a temporary playing field. Virtually all the fields are clearly demarcated with Page 16 of 72 16 hedgerow planting, a number of which are coincidental with the alignment of drainage ditches and watercourses.
6.2.5 The only building, Highfields Farm with associated hard standings and various outbuildings, is located to the western end of the application site.
6.2.6 The north eastern end of the site is bounded by existing residential development with the remainder of the site being bounded by open countryside, with Bakeacre Lane partially running along the south eastern site boundary.
6.2.7 In close proximity to the west there is a development associated with Rykneld Road that leads in a southern direction out from Derby. The fields directly to the north-west of the site (and to the other side of Rykneld Road) are allocated for mixed-use development (but predominately residential) under Policy H13 of the adopted Derby City Local Plan.
6.2.8 A thorough understanding of the character of the area, the visual prominence of the site and its relationship with nearby land and existing development is clearly set out in the Design and Access Statement and the accompanying ES.
Information submitted with the Application
6.2.9 The appellants state that achieving development that is both sustainable and of a high design quality are two key objectives of the Government and their significance cannot be understated; these principles now being firmly embedded in national planning policy guidance.
6.2.10 The appellants further state that details of the planning policies relevant to the consideration of the application site are set out in Chapter 3 of the ES. (N.B. The Planning Policies relevant to the consideration of all of the application sites are set out in sections 7 and 8 of this report).
6.2.11 In summary, the appellants state that the development of the application site constitutes a high quality planned environment based on established sustainable urban principles. The accessibility of the application site to existing key local facilities and services is an important consideration alongside the ability to sustain and promote the building of new communities whilst meeting the housing needs of the area.
6.2.12 The close association with the urban area of Derby City is also of merit, given the clear opportunities to integrate the new development with the existing urban area. This would also enable the extension of public transport corridors within and beyond the two application sites to a range of employment uses and other services within short travelling distances. The development of Heatherton (Littleover) and the Page 17 of 72 17 allocation of additional housing land and a mix of uses at Rykneld Road, Littleover, demonstrate the merits of such growth.
6.2.13 The development of the site would complement these areas of growth in an effective and highly sustainable pattern. Consequently the appellants conclude that the proposals accord with planning policy and guidance, particularly the Structure Plan and the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy in RSS8.
6.2.14 The proposals contained in the application represent a logical urban extension on the edge of Derby to provide for an identified housing need in the South Derbyshire area in an attractive and well-designed manner.
6.2.15 The ES has considered the likely significant environmental effects relating to the proposed development, identified important impacts and considered mitigation measures, where appropriate, to minimise/remove the less desirable impacts.
6.2.16 The appellants consider that they have demonstrated that there are no overriding environmental constraints that would preclude the proposed development, and the implementation of the mitigation measures, as set out in the ES would, the appellants assert, result in some significant environmental benefits to this area.
6.2.17 The Design and Access Statement and the ES demonstrate, in the appellants view, that there are no material constraints to the proposals and that they are in accordance with national, regional and local planning policies.
Planning History
6.2.18 The site was promoted by the appellants, as an objection site through the Local Plan Inquiry in 2003.
6.2.19 As the Report into objections to the Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan published in November 2004 (“The Local Plan Inspectors Report”) did not comply with the Statutory requirements (not having been a report of the person holding the public inquiry into objections), however, the Council resolved on 19 May 2005 to withdraw the South Derbyshire Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan and instead proceed with the preparation of the Local Development Framework.
6.2.20 The Council has subsequently resolved that it will not seek to rely upon, or refer to, any part of the Local Plan Inspectors Report in respect of the consideration of any of the appeals which are before the joint public inquiry.
6.2.21 The only other planning history on the land in the recent past relates to the grant of temporary planning permissions for the Derby Grammar School to use some of the fields for sports activities.
Page 18 of 72 18 Responses to Consultations
6.2.22 A full summary of the Responses can be found at Appendix A
Findern Parish Council objects to the development on the grounds that the site lies in the open countryside, medical facilities in the area are already full, traffic on the A38 would be significantly increased to the detriment of the residents of Findern, Secondary school provision is already stretched and there is no provision in the application to meet this requirement. There must be no vehicular access to Bakeacre Lane. The County Planning Authority considers that none of the planning applications currently under consideration can be determined in isolation. For this reason it is considered that a conjoined planning inquiry would be the most appropriate way to determine them. The East Midlands Regional Assembly comments that In general terms there is a need for further land for housing. It is noted that Highfields Farm is a green field site that adjoins the Derby Principle Urban Area. Other sites, such as Willington Power Station may be brown field but are not well related to the Derby Urban area. It is stated that although much growth will be achieved by brown field regeneration, a significant element will be accommodated through mixed use, sustainable urban extensions. The criteria in Policies 2 & 3 of the current RSS 8 and Policies 2 & 13 of the replacement document can be used to comparatively assess each of the sites currently under consideration and lead to determining the most appropriate future options. The East Midlands Development Agency is aware that this is an urban extension and that the applicants are seeking to provide for a mixed community with a mixed local centre and a primary school. The agency recognises that the development would add to traffic volumes in the surrounding area and that it would be important to ensure that the existing public transport infrastructure is able to cope with the increases. The Derby and Derbyshire Economic Partnership has no objection but prefers a brownfield site. Nottingham East Midlands Airport draws attention to the potential for noise complaints if housing is constructed beneath the flight path particularly at night. The County Highway Authority notes that no Transportation Assessment has been submitted with the application and as such there can be no comment on the impact of the development on the local and national highway network. If these problems are overcome then numerous conditions are recommended to control the development. The Highways Agency states that the application is incomplete in the absence of a Transport Assessment and that it is unable to comment on the application. Nevertheless, the Highways Agency has concerns that the development would be premature pending the formal consideration of the location and quantum of development that is required to meet future housing needs of the District that should be considered as part of the preparation of the LDF. This is a green field site the release of which may lead to an unsustainable form of
Page 19 of 72 19 development. Updated comments from the Agency, based upon an Initial review of the DATS model outputs have now been received. The Environment Agency has no objection in principle. The Agency would wish to comment on the ecological survey results and mitigation proposals for species and habitats once the information is available. Severn Trent Water has no objection subject to conditions relating to the submission of surface and foul water disposal and it draws attention to the location of sewers in and around the site that should be protected from development and landscaping. The County Archaeologist recommends that before the application is determined the applicant should be required to submit the results of an archaeological evaluation of the application area. The Head of Housing Services states that this large site should contribute to meeting affordable housing requirements of the area. The Director of Education states that the large application makes provision for a new primary school to be constructed that together with a contribution of £4,500,000 to construct the school or an undertaking from the developer to construct the school in collaboration with and to the specification of the Local Authority. Attention is drawn to the lack of Secondary School provision that would arise should more than one site be allocated. If one site then contributions are required. The PCT (Derby) commented that new practice premises would be needed but has written, after the appeal was made, to seek a formulaic contribution of £551.25 per dwelling. The Environmental Protection Manager has no objection subject to the imposition of conditions The Police Crime Prevention Design Adviser has no objection to the principle of the development.
Responses to Publicity
6.2.23 A full summary of the responses can be found at Appendix B
6.2.24 Letters of objection to the development have been received on the following grounds: -
a) The development of the sites on the south side of Derby is premature and anti-democratic. b) Significant additions to the local area would arise (7000 additional people), significant traffic movements, new gas boilers and loss of agricultural land. c) The owner of the farm in the middle of the site asserts that she enjoys a right of way across the site that has been recently resurfaced. The right of way is kept locked for most of the day. d) There should be no direct access onto Bakeacre Lane in any circumstances. e) There is a significant problem of flooding in the area and this should be seriously considered. f) The fields should be kept; there are already large developments in this area (Heatherton Village). Page 20 of 72 20 g) There are major transport issues arising from the submission of this application. h) The development will result in a quiet cul-de-sac becoming a major access point to the development site. i) The fields are refuge for wildlife with badgers and other fauna evident in the locality. j) The existing schools would not be able to cope and there is a need for a new secondary school. k) There has not been enough consultation with the local community.
6.3 WRAGLEY WAY
The Appeal Proposal
6.3.1 The application is in outline for approximately 850 dwellings, accompanied by illustrative drawings, an Environmental Statement (ES), a Sustainability Appraisal and a Planning Statement. Notably no Traffic Impact Assessment was submitted for consideration. This information, along with ecological matters, was sought from the Appellant pursuant to Regulation 19 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations but was not supplied in advance of the appeal against non-determination. This information is outstanding.
6.3.2 Access to the development would be from Wragley Way to the north, crossing land within Derby City, and Deepdale Lane to the east. It is not proposed to provide access to Arleston Lane.
6.3.3 On-site open space would be provided, in the main, beneath the overhead electricity lines and over the high-pressure gas main that runs through the site. Major open space would be sited within the City limits and is subject to a separate appeal against non-determination by Derby City Council.
Site Description
6.3.4 The application site is a largely undeveloped area of countryside lying between the urban area of Derby to the north and the A50 trunk road to the south. The character of the area is one of open agricultural fields, mainly in arable use but with some pasture. The part of the site to the east of Deepdale Lane contains an existing farmstead (Ashlea Farm). Field boundaries are mainly hedgerows with some isolated trees. Overhead electricity pylons cross the site. Most of the site is physically separated from the built up edge of Sinfin by open land within the City boundary.
Information submitted with the Application
6.3.5 In addition to the matters covered in the ES and Sustainability Appraisal, the appellant has provided a Planning Statement. This Page 21 of 72 21 analyses policy and other material considerations and is summarised as follows:
• There is a strategic need for housing and the absence of adequate sites within the existing built confines of settlements means that land outside settlements must be considered for housing. This is a significant material consideration. • The site adjoins and is well related to the urban area of Derby. It generally satisfies the locational and other criteria of the relevant development plan policies. • In the absence of adequate previously developed land in urban areas to meet the housing requirement, the application site is an urban extension, which represents the next most sustainable option. • The Environmental Assessment submitted with the application demonstrates that there are no significant environmental impacts that would preclude the development of the site. • The site has well defined boundaries. The landscape impact is localised and the visual impact of the housing is capable of extensive mitigation. It would not be a prominent intrusion into the countryside. • There would be no material loss of agricultural land of the best and most versatile quality. • There would be a loss of habitat but on balance the impact on ecological resources will be positive and bio-diversity and woodland cover will be enhanced. • The scheme would make good use of existing infrastructure. • No historic buildings or important archaeological or geomorphological resources will be compromised. • There is no general problem of flood risk and watercourses will be incorporated and enhanced in terms of their function and their ecological value. • Noise, air quality and water impacts are mainly neutral with some potential for positive improvement. • The development will provide adequate sports and recreation facilities and will also enhance current local deficiencies. • Whilst this is an outline planning application, there are no identifiable constraints upon the ability of the detailed proposals to provide affordable and special needs housing, create a mixed community with a better mix of housing than is currently available, make efficient use of land, and produce a high quality of residential development. The three most important advantages of the proposed development are - its unrivalled potential to create more sustainable patterns of development - to build communities by integration with the existing community (the Sinfin locality is therefore the optimum location for new development in South Derby - and to alleviate an existing local deficiency in the provision of recreational space. • The Sustainability Appraisal shows the Wragley Way site demonstrates significantly greater sustainability credentials than the rival sites at Boulton Moor and Willington Power Station and therefore would be in greater conformity with National and Regional policy that seeks to direct new development to the most sustainable locations. Page 22 of 72 22 • Assessing the three sites against the five criteria set out in Paragraph 31 of PPG3, Willington would use previously used land but compares so poorly in relation the remaining criteria (location and accessibility to jobs, shops and services by modes other than the car - capacity of existing and potential infrastructure - ability to build communities - physical and environmental constraints) as to preclude its use for housing before the Wragley Way site. In terms of the latter four criteria Wragley Way is preferable to the other two sites, demonstrating clear advantages in a number of respects. • The proposed development at Wragley Way is the most sustainable option available and planning consent should therefore be granted at the earliest opportunity to allow the maximum possible contribution to housing completions by 2011.
Planning History
6.3.6 The site was promoted by the appellant, as an objection site through the Local Plan Inquiry in 2003.
6.3.7 As the Report into objections to the Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan published in November 2004 (“The Local Plan Inspectors Report”) did not comply with the Statutory requirements (not having been a report of the person holding the public inquiry into objections), however, the Council resolved on 19 May 2005 to withdraw the South Derbyshire Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan and instead proceed with the preparation of the Local Development Framework.
6.3.8 The Council has subsequently resolved that it will not seek to rely upon, or refer to, any part of the Local Plan Inspectors Report in respect of the consideration of any of the appeals which are before the joint public inquiry.
6.3.9 This application was reported to the Development Control Committee on 10 October 2006 before it was known that this appeal would be conjoined with the others. A copy of the DCC Report is appended (Appendix C).
Responses to Consultations
6.3.10 A full summary of the Responses can be found at Appendix A.
The East Midlands Regional Assembly comments on the abandoned local plan, the sequential approach and adequacy of land in the built up area. The East Midlands Development Agency comments on strategic need, infrastructure, sustainability, transport and compares the proposal with Boulton Moor. The County Planning Authority considers that a conjoined planning inquiry would be the most appropriate way forward to determine these planning applications.
Page 23 of 72 23 The County Highway Authority notes that no Transportation Assessment has been submitted with the application and as such there can be no comment on the impact of the development on the local and national highway network. If these problems are overcome then numerous conditions are likely to be recommended to control the development. Derby City Council considers that a conjoined enquiry is necessary, in particular with regard to strategic need. It also objects on transport grounds. Updated comments from the City Highways Authority, based upon an initial review of the DATS model outputs have now been received. Barrow on Trent Parish Council objects on traffic, location, crime and environmental grounds. Stenson Fields Parish Council objects on traffic, local services and environmental grounds The Highways Agency required a Transport Assessment, using the DATS model. Updated comments from the Agency, based upon an initial review of the DATS model outputs have now been received. The Development Control Archaeologist recommends prior archaeological evaluation. The Environment Agency has no objection subject to conditions. Severn Trent Water Limited has no objection subject to conditions. English Nature requires wildlife surveys. The Environmental Protection Manager has no objection in principle. The PCT (Derby) seeks a contribution for health care provision. The County Education Authority seeks a contribution to establish a new primary school. The Leisure Services Manager has no objection in principle. City Cllr Robin Turner (Sinfin Ward) objects and seeks an early inquiry.
Responses to Publicity
6.3.11 A full summary of the responses to publicity can be found at Appendix B
A petition (1737 signatories) and some 160 individual representations have been received, raising the following issues:
• Transport infrastructure. • Effects of traffic. • Adequacy of services and facilities. • Loss of farmland and wildlife habitats. • Impact on the character of the area. • Drainage and flooding. • Pollution and noise. • Conflict with policy. • Loss of greenfield land. • Sustainable development. • Health risks from the trunk road and electricity lines. • Impact on Regionally Important Geological Site. • Adequacy of EIA. Page 24 of 72 24 6.4 BOULTON MOOR
The Appeal Proposal
6.4.1 The application is in outline and seeks the following development:
• Up to 1058 dwellings. • Primary school (2-form entry). • Retail units. • A local centre (including land for possible community facilities and retail units). • Public open space (including children’s play areas, sports pitches/Pavilion and a pedestrian bridge over the Derby Spur. • Supporting infrastructure. • Landscape works (including an embankment alongside the Derby Spur). • Realignment of a section of Thulston Brook.
6.4.2 Land to the north of Thulston Brook is identified as a potential site for a park and ride facility.
6.4.3 A concept master plan and design brief are included.
6.4.4 Access to the site would be gained from the Snelsmoor Lane Diversion via a series of three roundabouts (with a possible fourth to serve the park and ride facility). A pedestrian cycle link from the site to Sevenlands Drive is shown, as is a potential vehicular access from Colwell Drive to the Snelsmoor Lane Diversion, to facilitate a bus route through the existing estate.
6.4.5 An Environmental Statement (ES) accompanies the application. This includes additional highways and ecology information sought from the applicant pursuant to Regulation 19 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations. In addition to the subject site the ES covers the potential effects of developing the full 76 hectares of land (approx 2000 dwellings) in the appellants’ ownership. The ES covers the following topics:
• Landscape and visual impact. • Ecology. • Transport. • Air quality. • Noise and vibration. • Hydrology, drainage and services. • Human beings (including local facilities, open space and schools). • Land. • Cultural heritage.
Page 25 of 72 25 Site Description
6.4.6 The application site is some 55 hectares of land located at the south eastern edge of Derby. It is part of a larger parcel of land amounting to some 76 hectares in total. The main part of the site is enclosed by the Snelsmoor Lane Diversion to the west, the A50 Derby Spur to the east, the old Snelsmoor Lane to the south and Thulston Brook (including a small area of land to allow for some realignment to the brook and associated landscaping) to the north. To the west of Snelsmoor Lane the site takes rather less than half the land between the road and the city boundary. Field hedges define the western boundary of this part of the site.
6.4.7 There is housing to the north and Snelsmoor Lane (as it heads west to Chellaston) to the south. A triangle of land to the east of the Derby Spur, its other boundaries defined by the old Snelsmoor Lane to the south and London Road to the north, is also included within the application site boundary, this being identified as land for playing fields.
6.4.8 The land to the south of the application site is within the South East Derbyshire Green Belt.
Applicants’ Supporting Information
6.4.9 In addition to the matters covered in the ES, the appellant has provided a Planning Statement. This analyses policy and other material considerations and is summarised as follows:
• It is clear that there is an appropriate development plan against which the proposal can be assessed. The scheme is consistent with the emerging Local Plan allocation (Policy H7: Boulton Moor). Given the advanced stage of that plan before its withdrawal, significant weight should be given to the withdrawn Local Plan. It is also clear that the proposals are in conformity with the Structure Plan. • The allocation of the site follows the decision by the Structure Plan authorities to keep land at Boulton Moor out of the green belt (1983), to help meet future housing requirements in the area. More recently the Structure Plan and RSS8 have supported urban extensions to the south of Derby. The draft RSS8 provides for significant expansion to the south of Derby. Boulton Moor conforms to the long-term pattern of development in the area. • Boulton Moor was identified as an appropriate housing site because it holds advantages, including – a highly accessible location, in terms of roads and public transport – a wide range of local facilities are proposed, fully accessible by foot – the provision of an integrated cycle and pedestrian network as well as bus services to encourage the use of non-car modes of transport – accessibility to East Midlands Airport and other committed employment provision the vicinity – existing local shops and services, to which foot, cycle and/or bus services would be improved – the provision of new shops, a school, community facilities and significant sports provision, to provide a basis for thriving Page 26 of 72 26 community, reinforcing the viability of existing and new services and facilities – the infrastructure in the area is sufficient to support the development and the site is fully serviced or capable of being served in all respects. • The proposal performs well against the sequential tests of PPG3 (starting with re-use of previously used land), based broadly on the sustainable characteristics of the site. The site generally conforms to the principles laid out in the sequential test, demonstrating a high level of sustainability. It is therefore considered to be the foremost choice for the allocation and release of land. The Local Plan Inspector, who noted the lack of previously used land available to deliver the strategic housing requirements, supported this approach. • The site is accessible to a range of shops, services and facilities and these would be reinforced through the provision of a new local centre. • The proposal would exhibit better sustainability credentials than other non-greenfield sites, which although they may be on previously used land, are remote from other facilities, employment opportunities etc. The proposal also performs well against the criteria in (the then) Draft PPS3. • The Transport Assessment (TA) and Supplementary Transport Assessment (STA) conclude that the relatively low predicted impact of development traffic would not adversely impact the occurrence of injury accidents in the area. Capacity mitigation schemes and financial contributions would deal with problems caused at major road junctions, including the provision of land for a park and ride scheme. The scheme would provide an integrated and enhanced public transport package, as well as forming a self-contained community with access by foot/cycle to local facilities, thus reducing the need to travel by car. Therefore the proposal would comply fully with PPG13. • Policy requirements on issues of Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, Planning and the Historic Environment, Archaeology and Planning, Planning and Noise, and Development and Flood Risk would all be satisfied.
Planning History
6.4.10 The potential for housing development at Boulton Moor was first generally identified in the 1980 Structure Plan when it was considered as the location for 2, 500 dwellings. By the time of the Inquiry into the adopted South Derbyshire Local Plan, 400 dwellings had received planning permission.
6.4.11 Drainage infrastructure provided for future development and the construction of the roads was specifically designed to accommodate traffic from future housing. Framework planting was also carried out. The Report into objections to the now Adopted Local Plan found that as the (then draft) plan sought to make full and effective use of existing committed infrastructure, the land therefore appeared to provide
Page 27 of 72 27 considerable opportunities for meeting housing need beyond that plan’s time period.
6.4.12 The Report also considered the impact of such a scale of development on the Green Belt, and concluded that development could well be less harmful from most view-points than the appearance of existing and permitted development in the locality.
6.4.13 The site forms part of land excluded from the Green Belt, when it was designated in 1983. The remainder of that land, in South Derbyshire, has already been developed. The adopted Local Plan comments on the potential for Boulton Moor to provide housing in the longer term.
6.4.14 The Revised Deposit Draft Replacement South Derbyshire Local Plan published in January 2003 proposed the allocation of land at Boulton Moor for housing. As the Report into objections to the Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan published in November 2004 (“The Local Plan Inspectors Report”) did not comply with the Statutory requirements (not having been a report of the person holding the public inquiry into objections), however, the Council resolved on 19 May 2005 to withdraw the South Derbyshire Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan and instead proceed with the preparation of the Local Development Framework.
6.4.15 The Council has subsequently resolved that it will not seek to rely upon, or refer to, any part of the Local Plan Inspectors Report in respect of the consideration of any of the appeals which are before the joint public inquiry.
Responses to Consultations
6.4.16 A full summary of the Responses can be found at Appendix A
The East Midlands Development Agency comments on sustainability, transport, affordable housing and environment. The County Planning Authority raises no objection in principle but considers a conjoined inquiry to be necessary. Derby City Council comments on housing, public open space, environment, urban design and air quality and traffic issues. Elvaston Parish Council objects/comments on the grounds of visual amenity, transport, highway safety, flood risk, community facilities, affordable housing and open space The County Highway Authority refers to potential need for access to another development site. Derbyshire County Council is aware that the appellant controls a large area of land fronting Snelsmoor Lane and is satisfied that subject to detailed design, a safe and satisfactory means of access into the site can bbe achieved. The Highways Agency requires further transport information. Updated comments from the Agency, based upon an initial review of the DATS model outputs have now been received. The Environment Agency has no objection subject to conditions. Severn Trent Water Limited has no objection subject to conditions. Natural England has no objectionPage 28 inof principle.72 28 Derbyshire Wildlife Trust has no objection in principle. The Environmental Protection Manager has no objection in principle. The Crime Prevention Design Advisor provides relevant guidance. The PCT (Derby) seeks contributions towards health care provision. The County and City Education Authorities seek appropriate contributions. The Leisure Services Manager has no objection in principle. The Council for the Protection of Rural England considers that the application is premature.
Responses to Publicity
6.4.17 A full summary of the responses can be found at Appendix B
160 letters have been received from households in respect of the following issues:
• Strategic need. • Highway safety. • Drainage. • Crime. • Sustainability. • Transport. • Inadequacy of Environmental Statement. • Wildlife. • Visual amenity. • Disturbance and pollution. • Emergency services. • Tress and hedgerows. • Facilities and infrastructure. • Water supply. • Character of neighbouring villages. • Landscaping. • Impact on green belt. • Competing sites. • Light pollution. • Policy. • Residential Community.
6.5 STENSON FIELDS
The Appeal Proposal
6.5.1 The application is in outline and seeks the following development:
• About 500 dwellings, based on a mean density of 35 dwellings per hectare on 14 hectares of developable land. Page 29 of 72 29 • Two principal access points onto Stenson Road, with additional emergency provision. • The provision of a community facility. • A series of linked open spaces.
6.5.2 Reports and Surveys are submitted covering the following matters:
• Design and Access Statement • Transport Statement – No formal TA whilst access to DATS model awaited. • Archaeological Desk Based Assessment. • Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. • Noise Assessment. • Flood Risk Assessment and Land Drainage Report. • Geo-environmental Desktop Study • Ecological Scoping Report.
Site Description
6.5.3 The appeal site is some 17 hectares of land located to the west of the built up edge of Stenson Fields. It is flat and triangular in shape, contained to the west by the Derby to Burton railway line and to the east by Stenson Road. The southern boundary of the site coincides broadly with the western end of Wragley Way. The land is in agricultural use. The triangular shape is interrupted by a small group of buildings at Stenson Fields Farm.
Applicants’ Supporting Information
6.5.4 In addition to the matters covered in the reports and surveys, the appellant has provided a Planning Statement. This analyses policy and other material considerations and is summarised as follows:
• The current application site was promoted through the last review of the South Derbyshire Local Plan (withdrawn). The inspector noted the sustainability of the site in terms of access to services and facilities, considering the site to be a more sustainable development option than Willington. Highway concerns in respect of traffic congestion along Stenson Road were recorded, yet the Inspector did not consider that highway concerns in themselves to be a sufficiently weighty reason for rejecting the site, and recommended that further consideration be given to Stenson Fields to make up any shortfall in Structure Plan housing provision to compensate for his recommendation to delete Willington Power Station from the plan. • Access is a material consideration for all the major housing proposals, particularly with the emergence of the Draft East Midlands Regional Plan, which proposes some 5000 dwellings within South Derbyshire District to be located on the urban edge of Derby. Strategic level decisions need to be taken to assess the potential for and timing of the delivery of housing alongside enhanced road Page 30 of 72 30 infrastructure and the early availability of the DATS model is essential if the matter is to be properly addressed at the Public Inquiry. The appellants acknowledge that their site must be considered in highway terms alongside other candidate sites, yet Stenson Fields has high accessibility to local jobs, services and facilities by non-motorised forms of transport as well as direct access to frequent bus services into Derby City centre. Thus the potential for accessing alternative transport modes is high and this is a very significant benefit in assessing sites that can be considered for early release for development. • The survey documentation demonstrates that the site is capable of easy, efficient development without significant constraint or effecting demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance. • The emerging East Midlands Regional Plan means that there will be a need for several greenfield housing allocations on the southern side of Derby to meet Plan’s housing requirements. The site’s sustainability credentials render it suitable for immediate development.
Planning History
6.5.5 The site was promoted by the appellant, as an objection site, through the Local Plan Inquiry in 2003. As the Report into objections to the Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan published in November 2004 (“The Local Plan Inspectors Report”) did not comply with the Statutory requirements (not having been a report of the person holding the public inquiry into objections), however, the Council resolved on 19 May 2005 to withdraw the South Derbyshire Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan and instead proceed with the preparation of the Local Development Framework.
6.5.6 The Council has subsequently resolved that it will not seek to rely upon, or refer to, any part of the Local Plan Inspectors Report in respect of the consideration of any of the appeals which are before the joint public inquiry.
Responses to Consultations
6.5.7 A full summary of the Responses can be found at Appendix A
The East Midlands Regional Assembly considers an opinion on conformity to be inappropriate at his stage. The East Midlands Development Agency comments on sustainability, transport and housing mix. The Highways Agency requires a Transport Assessment based on the DATS model. Updated comments from the Agency, based upon an Initial review of the DATS model outputs have now been received. The County Highway Authority notes that no Transportation Assessment has been submitted with the application and as such there can be no comment on the impact of the development on the local and national highway network. If these problems are overcome then Page 31 of 72 31 numerous conditions are likely to be recommended to control the development. Severn Trent Water Limited has no objection subject to conditions. Derbyshire Wildlife Trust recommends further pre-decision survey work. The Crime Prevention Design Advisor points out existing problems and recommends appropriate design measures. The PCTs seek contributions towards health care provision. The County Education Authority seeks contributions. The Development Control Archaeologist requests pre-decision evaluation. The Parish Council objects on transport, sustainability, infrastructure, countryside and wildlife issues.
Responses to Publicity
6.5.8 A full summary of the responses can be found at Appendix B
10 letters have been received raising the following issues:
• Transport and highway safety. • Sustainability. • Visual amenity and character. • Drainage.
7 Development Plan Policies
7.1 The policies relevant to the determination of the appeal proposals (summarised in Appendix D) are as follows:
7.1.1 Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands (RSS8)
Policies 1, 2, 3, 5, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, Appendix 4
7.1.2 Derbyshire and Derbyshire Joint Structure Plan – January 2001
General Development Strategy 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 Housing Policy 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 17 Transport Policy, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 15 Environment Policy 1, 7, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 Economy Policy 17
7.1.3 South Derbyshire Local Plan – May 1998
Housing Policy 8 & 11 Environment Policy 1, 9, 11, 14 Transport Policy 6, 7, 8 Recreation & Tourism Policy 4 Community Facilities Policy 1 Page 32 of 72 32
8 Other Policy Considerations (see Appendix E)
8.1 National Planning Policy
Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1)
Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3)
Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport (PPG13)
Planning Policy Statement 25: Flooding (PPS25)
8.2 Emerging Policy
The Draft East Midlands Plan (RSS8) published in September 2006 Policies 2,4,13, 14, 17, 18, Part 2 paras. 5.1, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, Three Cities SRS Policy 4
9 The Main Issues in the Appeals
9.1 The matters about which the Secretary of State has advised that she particularly wishes to be informed for the purposes of her consideration of these appeals are as follows:-
a) the extent to which the proposed development would be in accordance with the development plan for the area; b) the extent to which the proposed development(s) would be consistent with Government policies in Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Developments, and accompanying guidance The Planning System: General Principles with particular regard to whether the design principles adopted in relation to the site(s) and its/their wider context(s), including the layout, scale, open space, visual appearance and landscaping, will preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area, having regard to the advice in paragraphs 33 to 39 of PPS1; c) whether the proposed development(s) accord with Government policy in PPS 3 Housing particularly in respect of the advice on the provision of affordable housing. She also wishes to be informed about the sequential approach to residential development; whether the site(s) is/are in a sustainable location; proposed housing density; whether the dwellings will help meet an identified local need and the amount of car parking proposed; d) the extent to which the proposed developments) is/are consistent with the advice in PlanningPage Policy33 of 72 Guidance Note 13: Transport, in 33 particular on the need to locate development in a way which helps to promote more sustainable transport choice, promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling; reduce the need to travel, especially by car and whether the proposal(s) comply(ies) with local car parking standards and the advice in paragraphs 52 to 56 of PPG13; e) whether any permission(s) should be subject to any conditions and, if so, the form these should take; and f) any other matter that the Inspector thinks relevant.
10 Sustainability
10.1 Sustainability is a primary consideration in all current planning policy. The following digest of Development Plan and PPS3 policy is given so as to provide a basis for assessing the sustainability of each of the appeal proposals.
10.2 Policy GDSP3 of the Structure Plan requires that new development will: o Be well related to settlements o Respect patterns of open land within and between settlements o Make full and effective use of brown field land o Make good use of existing or potential infrastructure, particularly where favouring travel by means other than the car o Increase density towards major transport nodes o Avoid causing problems for utility provision o Avoid hazardous areas such as those prone to flood o Avoid prominent intrusion into the countryside o Where appropriate contribute to the regeneration of deprived area of Derby.
10.3 Housing Policy 4 provides for housing well related to the urban area to be: o Well related to existing development in scale and location o Capable of being integrated with the existing settlement pattern and land uses o Contribute to establishing a mixture of compatible uses o Located where there is significant public transport infrastructure or published improvements programmes can be facilitated o Taking account of the availability or need for service infrastructure o Having regard to the growth and location of employment in the whole urban area o Avoiding intrusion into the countryside or other important areas of open land o Make full and effective use of brown field land.
Page 34 of 72 34 10.4 Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)8, which postdates the Structure Plan provides for very similar criteria to be applied to site selection but establishes a clear priority sequence: o Brown field within urban areas o Other land within urban areas, not previously protected for amenity purposes o Suitable sites adjoining urban areas which are well served by public transport particularly brown field land o Suitable sites not adjoining urban areas, well served by public transport particularly brown field land.
10.5 Planning Policy Statement 3 (Housing) also bears on the issue:
o The Government wishes to see well evidenced requirements for sustainable development of high design quality on genuinely available land, providing mixed developments of appropriate density, including adequate affordable housing in a manner that facilitates improved ability to travel by means other than private car and avoids inappropriate land including that likely to flood. LPA’s must provide at least a 5 year supply of evidently available land. Para. 36 states;
o ‘36. In support of its objective of creating mixed and sustainable communities, the Government’s policy is to ensure that housing is developed in suitable locations which offer a range of community facilities and with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. This should be achieved by making effective use of land, existing infrastructure and available public and private investment, and include consideration of the opportunity for housing provision on surplus public sector land (including land owned by Central Government and its bodies or Local Authorities) to create mixed use developments. The priority for development should be previously developed land, in particular vacant and derelict sites and buildings’.
10.6 The criteria set down in these policies form a convenient basis for a strategic assessment of the sustainability of the competing sites. The methodology adopted to undertake such an assessment in this case is set out in Appendix F.
11 Planning Assessment
11.1 Introduction
11.1.1 Site appraisals have been undertaken for each application site for the purpose of assessing their merits and to inform the Council’s consideration of preferred release of land in response to the need for housing development in the Derby Sub-area identified earlier in Section Page 35 of 72 35 5. The assessments have been carried out against the 7 headline sustainability objectives set out in the appendix to this report.
11.1.2 A primary requirement for the Council in connection with these appeals is to ensure, so far as possible, that the site, or sites, preferred for development are capable of delivering the required number of houses within the 5 year period commencing in 2008. That is the year in which it is expected that the Secretary of State’s decision on the appeals will be made.
11.1.3 With the exception of Willington Power Station, all the sites are contiguous, or nearly so, with the urban area of Derby and their development would be in the form of extensions to the urban area. All the sites are within the Derby Sub-area defined in the Structure Plan. Again, with the exception of Willington Power Station, all are within the Derby Principal Urban Area (PUA) in the Draft Review of the East Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy. The Derby PUA is defined as Derby City and contiguous built up areas extending into adjoining Districts.
11.2 Willington Power Station
11.2.1 The proposal is put forward as a mixed use balanced development, integrating jobs and housing to provide about 1,000 dwellings and up to 10,000 sq.m of employment floorspace, together with a local centre, an extension to Findern Primary School and significant areas of public open space.
11.2.2 Its development would contribute to the creation of a mixed community at Willington and, alone of the sites the subject of the conjoined public inquiry, it is a major brownfield site, the re-use of which would be wholly in accordance with national planning policy to give priority to the use of such land, in particular vacant and derelict sites and buildings.
11.2.3 In its response to consultation on the Draft East Midlands Plan (RSS8), the Council drew attention to the potential of sites such as Willington, and said that it is essential that it is understood that local authorities are best placed to understand local communities and to develop local solutions to the development needs of the District. The Council’s response also noted that sustainable approaches to the location of development require far more sophisticated policies than simply directing development to the edge of major urban areas.
11.2.4 The location of the site, however, is not well related to the settlement pattern of Willington, a factor exacerbated by the retained substantial electricity sub-station between the western end of the site and the village. The location does not score well with regard to the opportunity to access a range of community facilities, jobs, key services and infrastructure, nor is it in a location well served by public transport and other non-car modes. With regard to contributing towards cutting carbon emissions and reducing the impacts of climate change, both
Page 36 of 72 36 public transport and private car journeys would reflect the non-urban edge location of the site.
11.2.5 The Council’s Landscape Architect concludes that generally, the site is reasonably well concealed. However, there would be potential to improve on the site’s landscape concealment and screening.
11.2.6 Assessment of the need for off-site highway works has not yet been completed by the highway authority.
11.3 Highfields Farm
11.3.1 The proposal is for up to 1,200 dwellings, a primary school, and community facilities, including retail units, restaurants, public house and hot food take away and a country park. This is a greenfield site adjoining housing within Derby City and committed housing development, also within the City at Rykneld Road. Whilst the proposal includes a mix of uses, it does not include employment uses, but it is well related to the urban area of Derby and employment areas within it. It should be borne in mind that the purpose of identifying land within the Derby Sub-area at this stage is to fulfill a housing requirement. There are no identified employment requirements in the Derby Sub-area within South Derbyshire District which the appeal applications need to satisfy.
11.3.2 The site offers the opportunity to access a range of community facilities, jobs, key services and infrastructure, and to be well served by public transport and other non-car modes, but as a greenfield site, it has a significant negative impact on the objective to prioritise the use of brownfield Land.
11.3.3 Its location at the edge of the urban area, with the potential for walking, cycling and the use of public transport indicates that it would contribute towards cutting carbon emissions and the reduction of the impacts of climate change.
11.3.4 The impact of the development on the junction of Rykneld Road and the A38 remains to be assessed and any improvements, and their timing, agreed with the Highways Agency. Within the City, several junctions along the Uttoxeter Road and Burton Road Corridor have capacity problems that lead to congestion, queues and delays. Mitigation and resolution of these issues before development is acceptable to the highway authorities may delay the commencement of development. Delay may also arise if land within the City is developed ahead of, or at the same time as, Highfields Farm.
11.3.5 The Council’s Landscape Architect concludes that the rural lane should be preserved by retaining its leafy countryside lane character. The large fields have removed a lot of the farm’s rural character. Valuable hedges should be retained and enhanced. The ridge and furrow areas
Page 37 of 72 37 should be investigated. The lane’s hedges should be enhanced and thickened to form a visual buffer.
11.3.6 On the main roadside a landscape screen belt would be important to integrate any development. A thick tree planting belt would help both the busy road and any housing site to inter-relate with each other. The site is generally flat uniform agricultural landscape. There are some fine hedges and mature trees. The site would form a reasonable extension to the Derby housing area. However, valuable trees and hedges should be integrated into any proposals. The main road could be enhanced with good screen landscaping.
11.4 Wragley Way
11.4.1 The proposal is for approximately 850 dwellings on a greenfield site adjoining the City boundary. The site is separated from the built up area of the City along most of its northern boundary by open land within the City to the south of Wragley Way.
11.4.2 The site offers the opportunity to access range of community facilities, jobs, key services and infrastructure, and to be well served by public transport and other non-car modes, but as a greenfield site, it has a significant negative impact on the objective to prioritise the use of brownfield land.
11.4.3 Its location near the edge of the urban area with its potential for walking, cycling and the use of public transport indicates that it would contribute towards cutting carbon emissions and the reduction of the impacts of climate change.
11.4.4 Stenson Road, to the west of Wragley Way, and running northwards into the City, is a single carriageway of varying width, but for most of its length is quite narrow. A significant capacity restriction is the railway bridge south of Primula Gardens. This is operated by traffic signals to provide control of the single lane operation over the bridge. The Senior Transportation Engineer at the City Council considers that north of Blagreaves Lane the road is particularly stressed and this impacts on traffic flows in the peak periods, leading to congestion, queues and delays.
11.4.5 Sinfin Road is a single carriageway of varying widths which provides access to the industrial northern end of Sinfin, dominated by the Rolls Royce aero engine works. The Senior Transportation Engineer considers that analysis shows that the length of Sinfin Lane between Grampian Way and Wilmore Road is stressed, predominately due to the high volume of car traffic generated in the residential areas accessed from this road together with the industrial traffic generated from the warehousing and distribution businesses located here.
Page 38 of 72 38
11.5 Boulton Moor
11.5.1 Up to 1058 dwellings are proposed on this site, together with a primary school, retail units and a local centre, public open space and to the east of the Derby Spur Road, sports pitches linked by a pedestrian bridge over the Spur.
11.5.2 This is a greenfield site adjoining existing housing in South Derbyshire which in turn adjoins housing within Derby City. Whilst the proposal includes a mix of uses, it does not include employment uses. However, it is well related to the urban area of Derby and employment areas within it. Highway infrastructure is in place to access the urban area and to develop the site itself. Within South Derbyshire adjoining the northernmost boundary of the site, there is a proposal for a park and ride facility to link with the City centre.
11.5.3 The site offers the opportunity to access a range of community facilities, jobs, key services and infrastructure, and to be well served by public transport and other non-car modes, but as a greenfield site, it has a significant negative impact on the objective to prioritise the use of brownfield land.
11.5.4 Its location at the edge of the urban area, with the potential for walking, cycling and the use of public transport indicates that it would contribute towards cutting carbon emissions and the reduction of the impacts of climate change.
11.5.5 The Derby Spur and Alvaston Bypass (A6T) form a dual carriageway link from the A50 into the City. The City’s Senior Transportation Engineer considers that the route is a high capacity route, and although the links are currently unstressed, the at-grade junction of the Alvaston Bypass and Raynesway is already congested in the peak periods.
11.6 Stenson Fields
11.6.1 The proposal is for about 490 dwellings and the provision of a community facility, on a triangular site bounded by Stenson Road, the railway line and a brook passing in culvert under Stenson Road at its junction with Wragley Way.
11.6.2 The site offers the opportunity to access a range of community facilities, jobs, key services and infrastructure, and to be well served by public transport and other non-car modes, but as a greenfield site, it has a significant negative impact on the objective to prioritise the use of brownfield land.
11.6.3 Its location at the edge of the urban area, with the potential for walking, cycling and the use of public transport indicates that it would contribute Page 39 of 72 39 towards cutting carbon emissions and the reduction of the impacts of climate change.
11.6.4 Stenson Road running northwards into the City is a single carriageway of varying width, but for most of its length is quite narrow. A significant capacity restriction is the railway bridge south of Primula Gardens. This is operated by traffic signals to provide control of the single lane operation over the bridge. The Senior Transport Engineer at the City Council considers that north of Blagreaves Lane the road is particularly stressed and this impacts on traffic flows in the peak periods, leading to congestion, queues and delays.
11.7 Comparative Assessment
11.7.1 As is apparent from the summary site assessments, there are no significant differences between the four sites peripheral to the Derby urban area in their overall achievement of the sustainability appraisal objectives. A potential significant distinction between them could arise out of further work into their impacts on the highway network and the ability, either physically or financially, to mitigate such impacts within a timeframe to deliver housing to meet the established housing need.
11.7.2 Consideration also needs to be given to the possible levels of need to be met. Based on the conclusions in Section 5 of this report, it is considered that preferred choices should have regard to a need for a range of 1000, 1500 and 2000 dwellings in the 5 year period 2008- 2013. Provision of housing in that period for an amount to be determined by the Secretary of State through these appeals will leave the longer term provision and location for housing and other development through to 2026 to be determined through the Local Development Framework to be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the RSS currently being reviewed.
11.7.3 The one brownfield site the subject of these appeals, Willington Power Station, lies within the Derby Sub-area in the current Structure Plan, but it is not within the Derby PUA as proposed in the Draft Review of the RSS. The Council’s response to consultation on the Draft recognizes that the site is a major brownfield opportunity. However, the Council considers that the appropriate spatial policies should be developed through the LDF and noted in its response to the Draft RSS that PPS3 Housing recognizes that sustainable approaches to the location of development require far more sophisticated policies than simply directing development to the edge of major urban areas. Whilst recognizing the potential offered by Willington Power Station, it is considered that the spatial strategy for its re-use should be developed through the LDF.
11.7.4 Boulton Moor scores better than other peripheral greenfield sites, primarily due to the infrastructure in place or proposed, at or close to the site and to a less constrained corridor into the City than is the case Page 40 of 72 40 with other peripheral sites. As a single site it would have the capacity to provide about 1000 houses up to 2013.
11.7.5 In combination with Boulton Moor, Stenson Fields can provide for a requirement of 1,000-1,500 houses without committing the partial development of larger site options, thus leaving spatial options post 2013 to be wholly determined through the LDF. Cumulative effects of development should be mitigated by the distance between the two sites and their dependence upon separate transport corridors into the City. However, it is not known at this stage to what extent mitigation of effects of development on the highway network is physically or financially feasible to enable 500 dwellings to be delivered by 2013.
11.7.6 Highfields Farm has the prospect of delivering a substantial amount of housing up to 2013, but the prior availability of the Rykneld Road development within the City could be a constraint on the number of houses that could be sold in one location.
11.7.7 Although no details are available at this stage, it seems likely that significant mitigation of the effects of the development will be required to make the development acceptable. It is suggested, therefore, that in the context of a requirement to provide 2,000 dwellings Highfields Farm could provide 500, with the balance of 700 dwellings treated as a commitment in the preparation of the LDF. In the event that phasing at Stenson Fields is required, due to the need to mitigate effects on the highway network, it may be feasible to bring forward development at Highfields Farm to make up any shortfall.
11.7.8 The traffic issues raised by the City’s Senior Transportation Engineer act as a constraint to the development of the Wragley Way site. Although the Stenson Road site is similarly dependant on the Stenson Road corridor into the City, the difference of scale between the two sites suggests that the level of mitigation may be different in the two cases. In addition, Sinfin Road is stressed due to the high volume of cars generated in residential areas and the industrial traffic generated in that area. A further consideration is that the site is largely separated from the built up area by an undeveloped strip of land within the City.
11.7.9 In summary, the following order of preference for the release of sites is considered to be appropriate to meeting housing need in the Derby Sub-area 2008-2013:
o Based upon a need for 1,000 dwellings:
Site: Boulton Moor;
o Based upon a need for up to 1,500 dwellings:
Sites: Boulton Moor Stenson Fields (subject to the ability to deliver the required number of dwellings. In the event of a shortfall, seek to bring forward Highfields Farm) Page 41 of 72 41
o Based upon a need for up to 2,000 dwellings:
Sites: Boulton Moor Stenson Fields Highfields Farm (partial development)
12 Conclusions
12.1 The Council should submit to the Secretary of State that based upon the conclusions in Section 5 of this report, the Derby Sub Area land supply position supports the release of one site in South Derbyshire. This is an interim measure that should ensure a robust land supply position up to 2013 by providing sufficient, rather than too much, land.
12.2 Preferred choices should have regard to a need for a range of 1000, 1500 and 2000 dwellings in the 5 year period 2008-2013. Provision of housing in that period for an amount to be determined by the Secretary of State through these appeals will leave the longer term provision and location for housing and other development through to 2026 to be determined through the Local Development Framework to be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the RSS currently being reviewed
12.3 For the reasons set out in this report the Council should submit to the Secretary of State that its preferred order of release of sites to meet housing need in the Derby Sub-area 2008-2013 is:
o Based on a need for 1,000 dwellings - Boulton Moor;
o Based upon a need for up to 1,500 dwellings - Boulton Moor and Stenson Fields (subject to the ability to deliver the required number of dwellings. In the event of a shortfall, seek to bring forward Highfields Farm)
o Based upon a need for up to 2,000 dwellings - Boulton Moor, Stenson Fields and Highfields Farm (partial development)
Page 42 of 72 42 Appendix A Responses to Consultations
Willington Power Station
The East Midlands Regional Assembly notes that the land is not allocated for any development in the Local Plan and at the time he considered the proposal, the Local Plan Inspector concluded that the site was unsuitable for housing and employment purposes. It notes that Policies 2,3 19 & 20 place emphasis on the re-use of previously developed land but there is a priority for land that is within the built up framework of towns and cities, with good access to sustainable transport and other economic and social infrastructure. EMRA concludes that this site is relatively remote from the level of infrastructure necessary to properly service a development of this kind. At the time the response was written, it was considered by EMRA that sufficient sites existed in the Derby Sub-Area to meet the housing needs for this area but the comment was made that EMRA was aware of the Options for Change document and the forthcoming review of the Regional Spatial Strategy. (The Draft of this has now been published for public consultation).
The East Midlands Development Agency notes the policy background as expressed in the above comment and the policies in the Derby and Derbyshire Joint Structure Plan relating to housing and employment provision. Reference is also made to the conclusions of the Local Plan Inspector about this site and the contents of the Council’s Planning Policy Position Statement. EMDA concludes that the site has the potential to contribute to the re-use of formerly developed land but careful scrutiny would be necessary of the sustainability of both the residential and employment development elements of the application.
The County Planning Authority objects to the development on the grounds that this is not a sustainable location for major housing and employment uses and considers that this and other sites on the south side of the City should be considered at a single inquiry.
Willington Parish Council objects to the development on the following grounds: - a) The site is partly previously developed land, divorced from the village itself. PPG 3 states that previously developed land in urban areas should be given priority; no special status is afforded to such land in the countryside. This is confirmed in RPG 8 in its Policy 2 that identifies a sequential approach to site selection. It is not an area well served by public transport as required by Policy 5 of the RPG 8. Neither do the proposals conform with the requirements of Structure plan General Development Strategy Policy 1 for the location of new development nor General Development Strategy Policy 3 which sets out criteria for the location and density of development. These comments apply equally to the housing and employment elements of the application. b) The surrounding highway network is known to flood resulting in road closures. It has significant access problems insofar as the two main access points on Twyford Road and Buckford Lane are susceptible to flooding and in Page 43 of 72 43 terms of traffic entering the village from the east, there is a significant element of congestion arising from the alignment of the road, rail bridges of limited width and the double mini traffic islands in the centre of the village. Buckford Lane is entirely unsuitable to take the additional traffic flows from the new development. The increased levels of traffic generated by the development would be detrimental to the environment of the village, as well as causing additional traffic problems in the village centre and surrounding rural roads. c) Is identified on the Environment Agency indicative flood plain map as being partly within the flood plain. Clearly this is not a location for a major housing development. Regional and Structure Plan policies state that houses should be located away from hazardous areas including areas subject to flooding. PPG 25 advocates a precautionary approach to locating development in areas that although presently not subject to flooding, may in the future, as a result of climate change, be subject to flooding. The site is located in an area at risk from flooding and alternative sites outside this sort of area should be rejected before development in the flood plain is even considered. The loss of a significant area of flood plain may also increase the risk of flooding in other areas as a consequence. d) The site is located in an entirely unsustainable location given that the village is poorly served by retail, employment, leisure and public transport facilities. Indeed anyone needing to shop at a large food or DIY store would do so by private motorcar; the chances of such trips being made by public transport are low. In 2003 a survey of the village was undertaken with some 401 responses. It showed that 20% of primary school children are educated outside the village and 100% of secondary age children are educated outside the village. The same sort of percentages apply to people going to work, shopping or for using leisure facilities and significantly 88% of villagers do not use public transport. If the same levels were repeated in the new development, where there could be an increase of some 90% in the number of houses in the village, the impact on the local infrastructure would be significant. Clearly this is not a sustainable location for a major housing and employment site. e) The Parish Council considers that there are various inconsistencies arising from the application and the Environmental Statement. The wording of the form means that 1000 houses could be developed with no shops and no employment land. The Environmental Statement does not address alternative locations for development and as such the ES is deficient.
The Highways Agency initially directed that the Authority should not determine the application pending the Agency’s consideration of the impact of the development on the A38 and A50 Trunk roads and their associated junctions. The Agency has updated its comments in relation to all of the appeal sites with a position statement (as at 13th March 2007) as follows. “The Agency is working closely with the other highway authorities, Derby City Council and Derbyshire County Council to determine the affect upon the highway network of these sizeable developments. The use of the DATS model has been generally accepted as the appropriate way to inform the complex situation, and outputs from this model are currently giving a greater insight into the future transport situation in the area in and around Derby. The trunk road network around Derby consists of the A38, A50, A6 and A52. These key Page 44 of 72 44 movement corridors need to be protected for strategic movement and linkage to other key strategic trunk road, with the A50 having particularly high strategic importance. As such the development pressures in and around Derby and their impact on the wider network need to be understood and assessed most carefully.
The individual site outputs from DATM are emerging and give a feel for likely impact of traffic generated by the individual sites. While these direct impacts of individual sites is in itself a key issue that needs to be understood, it is critical to also understand the impact that the development has on background traffic and its redistribution effects.
Initial review of the model outputs has identified some interesting issues relating to each site and their impact on the network over the whole model area. Each development not only adds development traffic travel time but also incurs delay for the rest of the network. The HA must stress that at this stage no detailed assessments have been undertaken of sites, however a picture is forming as to how these sites impact on the network. Sites that increase the need to travel and extend travel distances by car can be considered to be less in tune with the guidance contained within PPG13. It follows that measures to improve their sustainability and travel choices would need to be carefully considered. The deliverability of sustainable travel choices and their effectiveness also need to be considered alongside the modelling outputs. The HA will be looking to provide an indication of the measures and mitigation required to deliver these sites in accordance with current transport policy. The emphasis being on mitigating the car borne trips associated with each site as far as possible through sustainable measures, with “hard” roadbuilding improvements only where other measures cannot provide sufficient mitigation.
Initial site outputs indicate that those sites relying on Stenson Road for linkage to Derby City have quite high delay penalties over the whole model area which indicates a need to travel for longer and further to reach destinations. DATM highlights traffic being pushed out of the immediate local area and into the wider area. This is likely to be due to operational issues along more direct route choices. Constraints within the transport network may mean that it will be difficult for such sites to deliver transport policy objectives.
Boulton Moor and Highfields Farm seem to incur broadly equivalent levels of additional delay (on average per dwelling) to each other over the network. However, results to hand indicate that Highfields Farm increases the distance travelled over the network somewhat compared to Boulton Moor. The outputs highlights that there is a significant amount of traffic routing along the A38 to reach destinations.
Outside of the DATM modelled area is Willington Power Station which also will have an impact on junctions within the modelled area. Its location away from the main urban area highlights a need for sustainable transport access to be considered. We understand that these are indeed under consideration, although the Agency has yet to see any results from this work.
Page 45 of 72 45 Initially mitigation must consider sustainable strategies and following from this physical mitigation through junction improvement will be considered but this should only be following the investigation of promoting travel choice for residents. The mitigation in each case should explore P&R, PT improvements and local cycle and walking strategies linking them to wider networks. The HA continues to liaise with Derby CC to determine what mitigation is feasible and deliverable for each of these sites in terms of alternatives to the private car. Following this work it would be appropriate to review any proposals for junction mitigation.
On the basis of the information that has emerged to date, it seems likely that mitigation for each site will undoubtedly include some physical junction improvements to resolve trunk road impact where this is unavoidable. But the Agency would nonetheless like to see alternative strategies put in place such as P&R linkage and effective and deliverable bus priority that offers competitive journey times when compared with the private car.
In terms of mitigation for each of these sites Willington Power Station is likely to require at least some degree of mitigation at A38 and A50 junctions (A38/ A5131 Willington, A38/ A50 Burnaston and A50/ A515 Sudbury), Highfields Farm is likely to have a significant impact on A38/ A5250 Findern and some impact at with A38/ A50 Burnaston. In addition, Highfield Farm impacts are felt further along the network at A38/ A5111 Kingsway junction. The A38 Derby junction improvements will provide enhancements at this junction around 2014. Therefore it is unlikely that Highfields Farm would be able to progress beyond a limited threshold until these improvements are in place, the Kingsway junction at present being an at-grade junction with existing capacity issues.
Boulton Moor is likely to need to consider mitigation at A6/ B5010. Wragley Way and Stenson Fields have a different set of issues facing them in terms of how to promote sustainable access to their site, the infrastructure does not appear to be in place to enable this to be easily achieved and as such new access strategies may be needed to enable these measures to be fully realised. The delivery of the infrastructure requirements associated with part of these sites may lead to delivery difficulties in the short term, however, further work is required to determine whether this is the case.
These observations are based on early analysis of the current DATM outputs. To date, these results are standing up to scrutiny and are encouraging as a basis for continued analysis. Consultants working for the various developers will of course take their own view upon the results, and may propose various measures to overcome perceived transport difficulties. It follows from the foregoing, that the Agency considers that this is “work in progress”, and although the current level of information and interpretation is encouraging, there remains a great deal to be done in order to reach a final position”.
The County Highway Authority has not made official comments but noted that traffic data was out of date, there are concerns about the methodology of the trip rate data; no reference is made in the Transport assessment to the retail uses on the site, the impact on the trunk roads nor on the use of the land Page 46 of 72 46 south of Twyford Road for recreation purposes. Further discussions with the applicants are suggested relating to the implementation of the travel plan and there are significant issues relating to access to public transport and accessibility. The County Highway Authority has consistently expressed concern regarding access to Buckford Lane in view of the substandard nature of the and it is unlikely that an increase in traffic flows is unlikely to be acceptable. The County Highway Authority has recently advised the Council that it still has insufficient information to assess the impact of the development in relation both to access, impact upon the wider highway network, and public transport. The County Archaeologist has studied the submitted information and, subject to the imposition of conditions requiring the submission of a written mitigation statement to secure the preservation of buried Neolithic remains, in particular and a condition to secure the implementation of a programme of archaeological work for the remaining areas of interest, the submitted information is considered acceptable. The Environment Agency notes the flood risk assessment and the information relating to contaminated land. It accepts the flood risk assessment and the limited information on contaminated land. Conditions are recommended that amongst other things require a detailed contaminated land study, a restriction on raising ground levels on that part of the site identified as flood plain in the assessment, agreement to finished floor levels for all buildings erected on the site, submission details of foul and surface water drainage, including the use of SUDS. On the biodiversity aspect the Agency notes that the development would improve some aspects on the site there is concern that housing development is proposed on some areas of interest. It is suggested that the housing be moved off these areas and the land be retained for its biodiversity interest and the housing be located on other areas of the site where it is proposed to create similar habitats to those that would be lost. It is argued that this would retain and enhance the biodiversity of the whole site. There are invasive plants present on the site and that it is recommended that these be removed. The Environment Agency states that there was a landfill site on land adjacent to the site. Severn Trent Water has no objection subject to the submission of the details of the foul and surface water disposal. It is noted that the developers would need to requisition new sewers and treatment capacity to serve the development. The Countryside Agency does not wish to comment on the application as it is not nationally significant.
English Nature notes that there are a variety of protected species around the site that will need to be protected during the development through the imposition of planning conditions, it would require that additional surveys to be undertaken before and during the development phases to ensure that protected species have not moved into areas of the site albeit that surveys have indicated that they are not present. The areas identified in the document as having flora interest should be fenced off during the development and that management and mitigation strategies should be developed.
Page 47 of 72 47 The Derbyshire Wildlife Trust is concerned about the loss of habitat that has also been identified by the Environment Agency. They advise that the almost total loss of this habitat is critical. Some of the mitigation measures proposed in the ES are unlikely to compensate for the loss of flora and fauna and that the Authority may wish to seek additional information on these aspects so that a full understanding of the issues can be arrived at before final comments are made.
Sport England supports the principle of the application, as it would bring a large area of brownfield land back into use. Monies from a Section 106 Agreement, including monies for future maintenance of the facilities, should be obtained to ensure that new and existing sports facilities are available to the community. Sport England would be happy to consider future development proposals on the site if it were granted planning permission.
British Waterways has no facilities directly affected by the development but recognises that there may be opportunities to link the site to the national waterways system for walking and cycling. It would be interested in discussions with the applicants in this regard and would wish to seek contributions through a Section 106 Agreement to achieve this, if acceptable.
Network Rail would wish to see improvements to Willington Station funded by the development to improve disabled access – the sum required would be some £300,000 but this may change once a full feasibility study is undertaken. Network Rail has no objection to the principle of the development subject to its assets being protected.
National Grid states that there is a long-term need for its assets at Willington to be retained as it forms an integral part of the national grid. No works should affect its site or transmission equipment including pylons. National Grid makes it clear that it would be opposed to any development that encroaches on its land. It also confirms that there is no gas transmission equipment in the vicinity of the site.
The Environmental Protection Manager suggests that there should be subsequent reserved matters applications, at which point a particular proposal will be assessed for its impact on the residential properties that would be constructed. On contaminated land, the Environmental Protection Manager recommends that further information on mitigation for individual areas would need to be submitted. The report in the ES identifies several contaminants including elevated levels of arsenic. In addition, a watching brief would be necessary in case any areas of contamination are identified during the development process.
The Crime Prevention and Design Advisor notes that a development of this scale is bound to have a significant impact on policing and community safety. It will be necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in a manner whereby opportunities for criminal activities are minimised. The police would be pleased to comment on any subsequent reserved matters applications should the development be permitted.
Page 48 of 72 48 The PCT has indicated that it would require contributions towards the enhancement of health provision in this part of South Derbyshire and it would be happy to pursue this with the developers.
Highfields Farm
Findern Parish Council objects to the development on the following grounds: - a) The site lies in the open countryside that divides the village from Derby. b) There should be no vehicular access whatsoever to Bakeacre Lane. c) The medical services in Heatherton village are already full and the additional development will have a severe impact on services d) The South Derbyshire District Council housing waiting list has doubled in size to1400 in the last 12 months – it is not clear why this has happened. e) Traffic at the A38 Interchange would exacerbate the problems experienced by residents of Findern in gaining access to the trunk road. f) It is noted that the development would provide primary school provision to serve the site. The secondary provision in the area in already quite full and a new secondary school should be provided on the south side of Derby before the children appear on the site.
The County Planning Authority has analysed the application in the light of other major residential applications to the south of Derby (9/2005/0611 – Boulton Moor, 9/2005/1432 – Willington Power Station, 9/2006/0075 – Arleston Lane, 9/2006/0750 – Highfields Farm Findern, 9/2006/0070 – Wragley Way Sinfin, 9/2006/0885 – Calder Industries Willington). It considers that none of the planning applications currently under consideration can be determined in isolation. Each of the planning applications, both individually and cumulatively, is likely to have wide ranging implications and impacts on housing provision policy, the local highway network and educational provision in both South Derbyshire District and the City of Derby. For this reason it is considered that a conjoined planning inquiry would be the most appropriate way forward to determine these planning applications.
The East Midlands Regional Assembly comments that: a) There is a draft replacement RSS 8 and the comments on this application are made in the light of both documents. b) EMRA is aware that there are several applications submitted or expected. There is an existing shortfall in housing land allocations amounting to some 1700 dwellings in South Derbyshire and the new RSS 8 suggests that South Derbyshire housing requirement is some 605 dwellings per annum to 2026. In general terms therefore there is a need for further land for housing. c) The principle underpinning the current RSS 8 is a sequential approach to site selection. Policy 2 sets out the location priorities for development. It is noted that Highfields Farm is a green field site that adjoins the Derby Urban Area. Other sites, such as Willington Power Station may be brown field but are not well related to the Derby Urban area. d) The current RSS 8 places emphasis on regeneration within the Principle Urban Areas (PUA’s). e) The replacement document changes this emphasis to ‘’strengthening the complementary roles of the threePage PUA’s 49 (Nottingham,of 72 Leicester and Derby) … 49 through new development and regeneration. It is stated that although much growth will be achieved by brown field regeneration, a significant element will be accommodated through mixed use, sustainable urban extensions. f) The criteria in Policies 2 & 3 of the current RSS 8 and Policies 2 & 13 of the replacement document can be used to comparatively assess each of the sites currently under consideration and lead to determining the most appropriate future options.
The East Midlands Development Agency is aware that this is an urban extension and that the applicants are seeking to provide for a mixed community with a mixed local centre and a primary school. It also notes that this is the fourth application that the Agency has been consulted on in the A50 Corridor. In determining the application, the Agency would want the Authority to ensure that no alternative brown field sites available before determining the suitability of this site. The agency recognises that the development would add to traffic volumes in the surrounding area and that it would be important to ensure that the existing public transport infrastructure is able to cope with the increases. The Derby and Derbyshire Economic Partnership does not oppose residential development although it would prefer the development to be located on brown field land.
Nottingham East Midlands Airport notes that the housing site lies beneath the flight path for the airport. Planes will be at 3000ft on approach and 4000ft on take off. Whilst the Airport Authority is satisfied that the development at Highfields Farm lies outside the 48dBa noise contour and is likely to remain so, there are planned increases in traffic movement to and from the airport with significant numbers of flights at night. It wishes the applicants to be aware of this fact.
The County Highway Authority notes that no Transportation Assessment has been submitted with the application and as such there can be no comment on the impact of the development on the local and national highway network. If these problems are overcome then numerous conditions are recommended to control the development.
The Highways Agency states that the application is incomplete in the absence of a Transport Assessment and that it is unable to comment on the application. Its 21-day consultation period will not commence until the information is received. Nevertheless, the Highways Agency has concerns that the development would be premature pending the formal consideration of the location and quantum of development that is required to meet future housing needs of the District that should be considered as part of the preparation of the LDF. This is a green field site the release of which may lead to an unsustainable form of development. An updated position statement as at 13th March 2007 has now been received from the Agency (see above).
The Environment Agency has no objection in principle subject to the imposition of conditions requiring: a) No buildings or structures or raising of ground levels within that part of the site liable to flood during a 1 in 100 year flood event (including the climate change. Page 50 of 72 50 b) Submit details surface water run off limitation measures to be implemented in accord with an agreed program. c) No built development including walls and fences within 8 metres of the Hell Brook or 5 metres of the Holly Brook. (Any such Structures may require the consent of the Environment Agency prior to construction) d) Finished floor levels should be set 600mm above 1 in 100 year flood levels including an element for climate change. e) All surface water should pass through oil interceptors prior to discharge into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaways system. f) All foul and contaminated water should be passed to the foul water drainage system and not to any surface water sewer, groundwater or soakaways.
The Agency also states that it would seek to control the disposal of rainwater contaminated with oil or silt during site construction through its powers under the Water Resources Act 1981 and it draws attention to the penalties that are applicable if there is pollution arising from the use of oil and fuel storage bunds that are subject to the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage)(England) Regulations 2001. The Agency would wish to comment on the ecological survey results and mitigation proposals for species and habitats once the information is available.
Severn Trent Water has no objection subject to conditions relating to the submission of surface and foul water disposal and it draws attention to the location of sewers in and around the site that should be protected from development and landscaping.
The County Archaeologist recommends that before the application is determined the applicant should be required to submit the results of an archaeological evaluation of the application area. A suitably qualified and experienced archaeological contractor should undertake the evaluation. The work should be undertaken in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (WSI) prepared by the appointed archaeological contractor and submitted in advance for agreement by the Development Control Archaeologist (DCA).
The Head of Housing Services states that this large site should contribute in three ways to meeting affordable housing requirements of the area. Firstly to provide dwellings to meet the immediate needs of Findern Parish for 13 affordable dwellings as identified in the recent Housing Needs Survey. The second area is to meet the housing needs of Derby City and wider South Derbyshire. In respect of the housing needs of the City, that Council is seeking a 30% contribution from the adjoining housing site and it is suggested that this should form the basis for the Highfields Farm site and the Councils will need to agree joint nomination rights. Page 51 of 72 51 The Director of Education states that the large application makes provision for a new primary school to be constructed that together with a contribution of £4,500,000 to construct the school or an undertaking from the developer to construct the school in collaboration with and the specification of the Local Authority. Secondary school provision would fall to the City Council and both the City and County Education Authorities are aware that secondary provision is under extreme pressure. In isolation this site would generate some 180 secondary pupils and some 90 post –16 students. In its own right this would generate a contribution of £2,538,900 and £1,362,690 respectively. However, the education authorities are aware of proposals for further major housing sites on the south side of Derby. Potentially there could be a need for a new secondary school but this would require detailed discussions between the respective education authorities before this could be confirmed to the developers.
The PCT (Derby) commented that new practice premises would be needed but has written, after the appeal was made, to seek a formulaic contribution of £551.25 per dwelling.
The Environmental Protection Manager recommends the standard narrative relating to a contaminated land study be undertaken. On other environmental health matters there is no objection in principle but conditions relation to noise minimisation are recommended to reduce potential noise intrusion for the surrounding road network and other sources; comments would also be made at the appropriate time when details of the development are submitted should permission be granted in particular about the shops and other community facilities.
The Police Crime Prevention Design Adviser has no objection to the principle of the development. On the layouts in the master plan, he notes the comments in the Planning Statement and is encouraged that appropriated design principles will be followed in designing the layouts. The police would be pleased to comment on any subsequent design layouts with a view to securing layouts that would help to minimise crime opportunities.
Wragley Way
The East Midlands Regional Assembly comments that the inspector, following the inquiry into the abandoned local plan in 2003, specifically rejected the principle of development on the site. It refers to the sequential approach to housing development and understands that sufficient land is available in the built up area of the city to meet current requirements.
The East Midlands Development Agency comments as follows:
• The development could make a major contribution to housing provision in the Structure Plan Derby Sub-Area. • The review of the Regional Spatial Strategy will provide updated housing figures for the Derby Housing Market Area. • The applicant does not appear to have sufficiently assessed the social and community needs generated by the development, for example Page 52 of 72 52 schools, healthcare, retailing and other services. These concerns have also been expressed by the Derby and Derbyshire Economic Partnership (DDEP). • Government guidance in Draft PPS3 states that housing should be located in areas with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. Furthermore, sustainable urban extensions should not be ‘bolted on’ to existing residential areas, but seek to integrate with existing residential areas such that they benefit each other. • The proposal would benefit from existing transport infrastructure in Sinfin such as the Wragley Way bus service and local cycle routes. However there would be increased traffic volume in the surrounding areas. This is one of several potential large housing developments and it is understood that the highways authorities are concerned about cumulative impact on the highway network. It is essential that traffic studies based on the DATS model are taken into account. • Whilst similar in scale to Boulton Moor (which EMDA supports) the approach to the provision of services is markedly different.
The County Planning Authority has analysed the application in the light of other major residential applications to the south of Derby (9/2005/0611 – Boulton Moor, 9/2005/1432 – Willington Power Station, 9/2006/0075 – Arleston Lane, 9/2006/0750 – Highfields Farm Findern, 9/2006/0775 – Highfields Farm Findern, 9/2006/0885 – Calder Industries Willington). It considers that none of the planning applications currently under consideration can be determined in isolation. Each of the planning applications, both individually and cumulatively, is likely to have wide ranging implications and impacts on housing provision policy, the local highway network and educational provision in both South Derbyshire District and the City of Derby. For this reason it is considered that a conjoined planning inquiry would be the most appropriate way forward to determine these planning applications.
Derby City Council considers that a conjoined enquiry is necessary to assess all current applications against relevant policies and criteria. It comments that the housing trajectory in the Derby 2005 Annual Monitoring Report indicates that the City’s Structure Plan requirement to 2011 could potentially be exceeded by 1400 dwellings. Much of this development is likely to be on brownfield land. The healthy availability of housing land within the City boundary reduces the urgency for land to be released in the short term in South Derbyshire. Moreover, in line with RSS Policy 19, it will be important to avoid significant over provision of greenfield land for housing on the Derby periphery. Overprovision could undermine the regeneration of brownfield housing sites in the City, including those being promoted by Derby Cityscape URC within the City Centre. The City Council comments that the RSS Review is about to be published for consultation. The guidance proposes annual build rates of 700 dwellings p.a. in Derby City and 255 in South Derbyshire as ‘sustainable urban extensions’. However it considers that these average annual rates are not expected to be evenly distributed over the plan period. In the earlier years the City Council expects build rates to be heavily weighted towards the City, reflecting the healthy short/medium term land supply referred to above and City Centre opportunities.
Page 53 of 72 53 The City Council considered that the development would have a serious impact on traffic flows in the local area and also on the Sinfin Lane and Stenson Road radial routes into Derby. An updated position statement as at 13th March 2007 has now been received from the City Council which states: “Following the latest round of testing of the inquiry developments using the Derby Area Transport Model (DATM) our consultants have provided us with an overview of the impacts from each development with a view to providing an overall comparison of their effects. Taking into account the amount of additional traffic added to the network, the distance that this additional traffic is likely to travel, and the time that the new traffic will spend travelling, together with the overall effect of this on the highway network, we can conclude that on this basis the hierarchy of performance is as follows:
Boulton Moor/Highfields Farm Stenson Fields Wragley Way
Boulton Moor and Highfields Farm tend to perform better than Stenson Road and Wragley Way as they are located next to higher standards of highway network than the Stenson Fields and Wragley Way sites.
Please note that this ranking is relative and that all sites regardless of ranking have a significant impact upon the highway network.
Our consultants have also looked, at the strategic level, at the number of individual junctions affected by each development site. Again, the ranking comes out as above. However, it should be noted that although Stenson Fields is the smallest site here the impact of it is disproportionate to its size, i.e. it has a greater impact than you would think for a development of its size primarily to its location which puts traffic onto roads and parts of the highway network which are considered unsuitable for significant additional levels of traffic.
All of these results have been obtained from looking at the 'worst case scenario' where no mitigation measures have been provided.
In our opinion no sites are objectionable in principle as in highway and transport terms the impacts can always be mitigated, however the cost of the mitigation required to make some sites acceptable in highway and transport terms could make that site financially unviable. For the site which we have agreed a programme of mitigation measures with (Boulton Moor) we know that this will not a 'cheap' deal and a substantial amount of investment will be required from all sites to mitigate their impact”. On the issues of education, affordable housing, open space, nature conservation and community facilities, the City Council makes recommendations that could be accommodated by condition or legal agreement/undertaking.
Barrow on Trent Parish Council raises the following objections:
Page 54 of 72 54 • Brownfield sites should be considered before this application, to accord with government policy. • Traffic would have a significant effect on the A5132 through Barrow to the Swarkestone junction. • Deepdale Lane has been subject to several accidents and is not suitable for any increase in traffic. • The road systems around the site are inadequate for the cars generated by the proposal. A site nearer to Willington and access to the A38 and A50 should be explored. • There are Iron Age remains that should be explored further. • Whilst wildlife has declined, a significant amount remains. • 950 additional houses would swamp Barrow in terms of parish representation. • Crime levels in the area are higher and there would be additional pressures on the police. • The fields in the locality are subject to regular flooding. • There could be increased risk of flood to Barrow. • Recent improvements to the sewerage system would be negated. • The environmental report is weighted in favour of the developer. An opposing view could be taken. • Barrow upon Trent has not been considered in the report. • It is important to retain a barrier of green fields between Derby and South Derbyshire.
Stenson Fields Parish Council objects as follows:
• The transport infrastructure is inadequate to cope with the increased traffic. Traffic difficulties already occur in the lanes to the south, as well as on the single width rail crossing into Littleover and Grampian Way. These existing problems would be made worse. • No additional facilities are proposed to deal with the increased population. Existing facilities are not adequate, in particular with regard to education and health care provision. • The viability of alternative sites, in accordance with PPG3, has not been properly evaluated or assessed. • Buildings in excess of 2 storeys would be out of keeping with the local area. • Construction work would have adverse impact on residents over many years. • There could be drainage and flooding problems. • There would be loss of wildlife and productive farmland. • The development would be close to the Stenson Fields Parish Millennium Wood project and affects a regionally Important Geological Site.
The Highways Agency directed that permission should not be granted until it had considered a Transport Assessment, using the DATS model to determine the scale and extent of traffic impacts. An updated position statement as at 13th March 2007 has now been received from the Agency (see above). Page 55 of 72 55 The County Highway Authority notes that no Transportation Assessment has been submitted with the application and as such there can be no comment on the impact of the development on the local and national highway network. If these problems are overcome then numerous conditions are likely to be recommended to control the development. The Development Control Archaeologist considers that an archaeological evaluation should be undertaken before the application is determined. The Environment Agency has no objection subject to conditions. Severn Trent Water Limited has no objection subject to conditions. English Nature requires surveys of breeding birds and invertebrates, and details of habitat management measures. Other aspects of wildlife interest can be protected by condition. The Environmental Protection Manager has no objection in principle. The PCT (Derby) has written, after the appeal was made, to seek a formulaic contribution of £551.25 per dwelling. The County Education Authority seeks a contribution to establish a new primary school. The Leisure Services Manager has no objection in principle. City Cllr Robin Turner (Sinfin Ward) objects and seeks an early inquiry into the whole issue of additional housing need in Derby and adjacent parts of South Derbyshire.
Boulton Moor
The East Midlands Development Agency comments as follows:
• The proposed mixed uses could help to improve the urban offer. • The proposal for sustainable modes of transport are welcomed. Emda would encourage the provision of a potential park and ride facility. The site is linked to major urban roads and is accessible to major urban roads. • The affordable housing element is welcomed. • The Council is encouraged to examine all available brownfield land before the site is selected for redevelopment. • The full environmental impacts of the proposal should be considered in context of adjacent urban areas. • Provision was made on land in the vicinity for a site to accommodate 1058 houses in the withdrawn emerging local plan.
The County Planning Authority raises no objection, considering the development to be in accord with strategic policy and shopping. However in a subsequent letter in response to application 9/2006/0070/M the County Council considers that none of the planning applications currently under consideration can be determined in isolation. Each of the planning applications, both individually and cumulatively, is likely to have wide ranging implications and impacts on housing provision policy, the local highway network and educational provision in both South Derbyshire District and the City of Derby. For this reason it is considered that a conjoined planning inquiry would be the most appropriate way forward to determine these planning applications Page 56 of 72 56 Derby City Council responded with Officer comments relating to housing, public open space, environment, urban design and air quality and traffic. Since the appeal was lodged the City Council has confirmed that the transport assessment for the site and the information required by the Regulation 19 request is now acceptable in terms of a) the scale and scope of the impact of the development, and (b) a comprehensive package of sustainable transport measures, which are compatible with the strategy and policies contained within the Derby Joint Local Transport Plan. An updated position statement as at 13th March 2007 has now been received from the City Council (see above).
Elvaston Parish Council raises the following objections:
• There should be no housing to the east of the Snelsmoor Lane Diversion, because of adverse impact on the rural settings of Elvaston, Thulston and Aston. • The provision of playing fields to the east of the A50 spur would not provide a coherent facility and would further erode the separation between Derby and Thulston. • There would be increased traffic through the existing residential areas and on the rural road into Chellaston. • There may be risk of flood from surface water runoff. • Children would be at risk, crossing Snelsmoor Lane to get to the new school and crossing the Derby Spur to get to the playing fields. • There would be a need to provide more policing in the area. • A place of worship, community hall, doctor and dentist facilities, retail outlets and a secondary school should be provided. • Affordable housing for local people should be provided. • If the open space is to be provided in the position proposed, it should be open public parkland rather than playing fields. • The bus link to Colwell drive should be postponed and is the source of strong local objection. • The traffic study does not address all relevant issues.
The County Highway Authority comments that there is a potential need for access to Elvaston Castle in the form of a roundabout, affecting part of the land proposed as playing fields. Further comments have recently been received referring to the potential need for access to another development site. Derbyshire County Council is aware that the appellant controls a large area of land fronting Snelsmoor Lane and is satisfied that subject to detailed design, a safe and satisfactory means of access into the site can be achieved. The Highways Agency directed that permission should not be granted until additional traffic information had been proved. An updated position statement as at 13th March 2007 has now been received from the Agency (see above) The Environment Agency has no objection subject to conditions. Severn Trent Water Limited has no objection subject to conditions. Natural England has considered the Supplementary Ecology Report and has no objection subject to conditions. Derbyshire Wildlife Trust has no objection but recommends local species planting and SUDS drainage as an integral part of the development. The Environmental Protection Manager has no objection in principle. Page 57 of 72 57 The Crime Prevention Design Advisor provides relevant guidance for the developer. The PCT (Derby) commented that new practice premises would be needed but has written, after the appeal was made, to seek a formulaic contribution of £551.25 per dwelling. The County Education Authority seeks a contribution to establish a new primary school. The City Education Authority seeks contributions towards secondary education. The Leisure Services Manager considers that there is a demand for pitches on the open space, but has no objection in principle. The Council for the Protection of Rural England considers that the application is premature and brownfield sites should be monitored first.
Stenson Fields
The East Midlands Regional Assembly considers that in view of the conjoined inquiry it would be inappropriate to offer an opinion on conformity at this stage.
The East Midlands Development Agency comments as follows:
• The Housing section of the regional Economic Strategy (RES) should be taken into account. The adequate provision of infrastructure and facilities should be a key consideration given the potential scale of these proposals, to support the creation of sustainable and integrated communities. • The RES also encourages a mix and variety of house types, including affordable housing, which the application proposes. • All available brownfield land should be examined before considering greenfield sites. • The proposal would add to traffic volumes. It is important to ensure that the existing transport infrastructure is able to cope with increased movements. Emda encourages the Council to ensure that the transport proposals are brought forward in a sustainable way that will reduce the impacts of the development on the surrounding areas.
The Highways Agency originally noted that a full Transport Assessment (TA) would be provided when DATM data became available. As no TA had been provided relating to this site the Highways Agency had insufficient information on which to comment. An updated position statement as at 13th March 2007 has now been received from the Agency (see above) The County Highway Authority notes that no Transportation Assessment has been submitted with the application and as such there can be no comment on the impact of the development on the local and national highway network. If these problems are overcome then numerous conditions are recommended to control the development. Severn Trent Water Limited has no objection subject to conditions.
Page 58 of 72 58 Derbyshire Wildlife Trust recommends that further survey work be undertaken prior to decision so that the nature conservation interest of the site can be fully assessed. The Crime Prevention Design Advisor points out existing problems of trespass, vandalism, and stone throwing at passing trains. Design measures are recommended to ensure that the new development does not contribute to these problems. The PCT (Derbyshire) recommends a contribution of £444. The PCT (Derby) seeks a contribution of £551.25 per dwelling. The County Education Authority seeks contributions towards primary and secondary education. The Development Control Archaeologist considers it necessary to undertake an archaeological evaluation, including site investigation, prior to a decision being made.
The Parish Council objects for the following reasons:
a) The transport infrastructure would be overburdened. Single track bridges restrict traffic on all but one of the main access routes. b) Local schools are already running close to or over-capacity. c) Existing medical facilities are oversubscribed. d) Alterative sites have not been properly evaluated or assessed in accordance with PPG3. e) There would be loss of a significant amount of countryside. f) There would be a marked effect on wildlife.
Page 59 of 72 59 Appendix B Responses to Publicity
Willington Power Station
Mark Todd MP objects to the development of the site on the basis that: - i) There are more appropriate sites available (Boulton Moor), the site was rejected by the Local Plan inspector, the site is too far away from the village centre and railway station and is unlikely to be adequately served by public transport and is not large enough to sustain its own public transport provision. j) Buckford Lane is wholly unsuitable as a main access point with potential dispersal towards Stenson Fields and Findern. What is clearly necessary is a major link to the A38/A50 interchange albeit that the Highways Agency has indicated that it would not support a direct new access to the A50. k) The rail station option makes little sense; it is too distant from the site and has limited trains stopping there. l) The creation of new shops and community facilities in this location would inevitably mean the closure of existing facilities in the village centre. m) It is acknowledged that the site has not flooded but part of the site lies in the flood zone; no development should be permitted in this area. SuDS is not an option without investigation to show that it would work. n) Whilst provision is made for primary school provision there is little evidence of secondary provision. o) More work is required to develop the health provision for a scheme of this size. p) Mr Todd notes that the site needs an alternative use; a planning brief should be prepared if this application were rejected, to secure a future use for the land that engages both the developers and the local residents. It needs to provide an economic return to prevent it being a continued eyesore of no economic or environmental value. It is requested that the Authority reject the planning application.
Toyota has commented that it would normally welcome proposals to create employment and improve the local environment but there are a number of concerns relating to the Willington Proposal: - e) It would be misleading to construe that existing jobs at Toyota create a need for additional local housing. Toyota has a stable workforce of 4,400 and most members live within a 30-mile radius from the Burnaston site. f) The company was surprised to note that the proposed bus route would be via ‘Toyota’, this has not been discussed with the company. g) The potential traffic generation at the A38/A50 interchange needs careful consideration from a safety perspective. Page 60 of 72 60 h) The company would wish to be notified when the cooling towers are demolished so any impact on its members can be minimised.
Save Aston Village Environment (SAVE) object to the development on the basis that too little attention has been given to providing a replacement railway station for Willington and to increasing the number of trains that stop there. It is suggested that the station be constructed ‘off line’ to allow express trains to pass stopping trains so that the capacity of the line can be increased. The District and County Councils should include the relocation of the station in future transport policy.
A total of 286 letters of objection have been received, raising the following issues:
VILLAGE STRUCTURE/CHARACTER
1. Village is unable to absorb this influx – character will change from a ‘village’ to a ‘town’. The new development will not be integrated into current community and will effectively become a separate village, as there is no physical connection. Proposals will result in 2 self-contained communities separated by a ribbon road over a mile long with no natural affinity or sense of community. A great deal has been made of the proposed buildings fitting in with the local character of the village but the designs submitted don’t actually reflect the local character and would look more at home near a river in Sweden than the River Trent or the Trent & Mersey Canal. The proposed houses are out of proportion with surroundings and existing properties. 2. The close-knit social structure of the existing village will be destroyed. The quality of life already affected by Toyota, A50 and increased flights from NEMA. Willington is a commuter village and if the housing is approved will fundamentally become a commuter village twice as big as it is now!
ARCHAEOLOGICAL/NATURE CONSERVATION ISSUES
3. Questions raised regarding the thoroughness, the archaeological survey and the extent of the depth they went to in order to investigate the site – wouldn’t it have been better to be consistent and employ the same archaeologists from Nottingham University who did the survey on the Findern Circus? 4. Questions raised about the thoroughness of the wildlife survey – no mention of the little ringed plover? The plans are very dismissive of the ecology on site – how are trees and hedgerows to be protected? How are wildlife habitats (badgers, bats, otters, birds – falcon’s nesting in cooling towers) to be protected and not disturbed while work is carried out? 5. Plan ‘looks’ very good in terms of nature reserves and open spaces but this is simply a ploy to gain the outline planning permission – once granted what’s to stop these areas shrinking in size and the sprawl of houses increasing which is what has been the fate of other approved developments around Derby. Housing land is so valuable that amenity spaces are pushed to the bottom of the list. 6. Light pollution is known to affect the behaviour of many wild animals and birds. Page 61 of 72 61 CONTAMINATION
7. The site is contaminated from its previous use (asbestos, coal buried on site) – how is this being addressed? The land can’t be used for agricultural according to supporting documents so does that mean it’s OK for homes and gardens? How is this contaminated material to be moved to the proposed landfill site and how will this process affect the existing communities? 8. The applicants have made no arrangements to carry out a full Environmental Survey of the site nor have they carried out a survey as to the cost of carrying out a full environmental clean up of the site.
PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMISSION
9. Developers only interested in profits with no consideration of the existing villages and their inhabitants. The effort that has gone into producing this high gloss application demonstrates this. 10. This is an outline application – can there be any guarantees regarding the maximum number of houses that can be built. Is the application for 1,000 houses a ploy for when its gets refused and then they can submit an application for 300 houses and make out they have compromised in order to appease the residents. Fears that developers won’t give up until they get their approval. 11. If this application is approved, who’s to say further development won’t follow. Developer’s plans look very good on first sight but when read carefully they are in a very flippant tone, almost like a sales pitch. As this is an outline application only, do we assume not all the proposals will be implemented or are they being used as an incentive to enable plans for houses to get passed? 12. Concerns raised that whole proposal is not available on the Internet – if it’s available on CD surely it’s a simple process to publish via the web? Many people work during daytime and cannot get to Council Offices during working hours. Extent of information submitted is far too great to assimilate and comment on constructively in the 21-day consultation period. 13. The site was considered at the Local Plan Inquiry where the inspector concluded that there were considerable limits to the appropriateness of the site’s location in terms of accessibility to jobs, shops and services. Structure Plan and other Government documents seek to direct development to sites that are well related to existing settlements and that are not open land or land that is between settlements. It is clear that this site lies between settlements and that the land ownership contains a significant element of greenfield land. It may be that the site needs to be referred to the Government as a green field site.
PLANNING HISTORY & ISSUES
14. Reasons the proposals were rejected last time by the planning inspectorate still apply! – this application is fundamentally the same as the previously rejected scheme. Comments arising from previous public inquiry that led to withdrawal of plans appear to have been completely ignored. There is nothing new in this application that wasn’t dismissed by the planning inspectorate at the inquiry apart from an increased number of houses. The site is not identified for development in the Adopted South Derbyshire Local Page 62 of 72 62 Plan (May 1998). Inspector’s Report in 2004 recommended a maximum of 450 houses. A major proposal of this kind is premature pending the preparation of the Council’s Local Development Framework. Why has the target number of houses increased from 950 to 1,000. 15. There is a covenant governing the return of the Power Station site to greenfield status within 5 years of demolition. When the power station was given permission, it was promised that it would be returned to its former ‘greenfield’ status as woodland when the power station became redundant. Some form of covenant exists regarding the locked exit from the power station to Buckford Lane with a proviso that it should only be used in extreme emergencies. 16. The redevelopment of the power station would not bring about the sort of regeneration envisaged by paragraph 3.5.37 of RSS8 and it does not comply with Policy 15 and paragraph 3.5.39 of RSS8. The proposal is contrary to RSS8 Policy 2 that sets out the sequential approach to land for development within the East Midlands area. This policy also suggests that many of the non- housing facilities being proposed should not be provided in this location. It also does not comply with PPG13 (part 13) in so far as the focus for additional housing should be existing towns and cities. 17. More suitable and sustainable locations than Willington exist for residential development of this size. The proposal constitutes an unsustainable form of development in that it is not self-reliant in a full range of community facilities. If this application were approved, the Local Planning Authority’s ability to accept proposals for more sustainable locations could be compromised. The application, if approved, would circumvent the preparation of new development plans documents through a democratic process.
HOUSING
18. The development could affect house prices – people have already paid a premium for living in a village location. 19. Concerns are raised over term ‘affordable housing’, what it means and whom it caters for.
EMPLOYMENT
20. With rising unemployment in the area, where are all the people who will live in these new houses going to work? Calder Aluminium has closed down, therefore there is already a reduction in the sustainability of the village and no doubt this site will provide another opportunity for development. Additional retail units will take business away from existing village shops. 21. People do not choose to move to a village for work opportunities but to live a life in a village community, therefore, there is no demand in the village for the ‘business development units’ specified. (However, demand would be created with the extra volume of traffic preventing anyone being able to get out of the village!!).
POLLUTION
22. Locating new football pitches so close to existing houses will cause additional noise pollution for residents. Page 63 of 72 63 23. Increase in light pollution due to increased street lighting for the new development as well as shops, industrial units, etc with illuminated signs. 24. There would be a detrimental effect from increased traffic on health – increase in air and noise pollution.
TRANSPORT
25. Accessibility is a major consideration, the documents have been carefully considered by independent traffic consultants and significant deficiencies have been found. The traffic assessment omits several important policy documents; there is a lack of signatories to the statement of common ground – most notable the Highways Agency or the County Highway Authority; the site is in an unsustainable location and there is no proof that the sustainable transport strategy would be delivered as a viable alternative to using the private motorcar. The letter of support from bus companies should be doubted, as it is now more than 3 years old. The lack of an assessment of the impact on the Trunk road network is a major omission and should also take into account potential traffic increases from the Toyota site where outline permission exists for a major expansion of built development. These and other omissions should be the subject of a Regulation 19 letter requiring these matters to be corrected. 26. The proposed accesses into/out of the development site are onto roads that are already dangerous and busy. Willington village lacks adequate highway infrastructure – it is already at its capacity and cannot deal with current volumes. No mention of how existing roads are to be upgraded to accommodate the increased traffic. Increased traffic congestion – increased number of cars and commercial vehicles (proposed retail, B1 use and food store on new site – both deliveries and employees). Traffic problems will also affect Findern, Twyford, Barrow and Stenson. 27. 1.5 cars per household as stated in the supporting documents is not a realistic figure for a new development of this size. The speed of traffic on existing roads is already an issue – there is potential for increased number of accidents. 28. Lack of existing traffic calming (speed limits are not adhered to) and pedestrian safety (zebras, pelican crossing etc). Removing the on-street parking and the zebra crossing in the village centre will make it totally impractical for use by residents, especially disabled users. 29. Present infrastructure already encourages existing traffic to shortcut through village and would encourage further ‘rat runs’. 30. The ‘Green Transport Plan’ has no proposals for an increase in car usage. Accommodating cycle paths into the design isn’t going to encourage people to cycle to and from work because of the volume of traffic that already use the narrow village roads let alone the increase in traffic if this application is approved. Provision of ‘free bus services’ will not encourage people to leave their cars at home. There is already a lack of public transport provision in area to serve existing villages – existing railway station has intermittent service with no disabled facilities (or facilities for parents with very small children) and the current bus timetable and routes do not encourage people to use public transport to travel to and from work. 31. The planning application gives no indication of how the 85% increase in traffic will be dealt with – only gives methods of slowing it down and diverting Page 64 of 72 64 it away from the village. The proposed road improvements only benefit the additional 1,000 houses and do not address the current traffic problems associated with the village. 32. Due to lack of footpath provision (Twyford Road, Frizams Lane) extra traffic will significantly increase risk to pedestrians, walkers, horse riders and cyclists. 33. Provision of new leisure facilities, shops and health centre will further increase traffic as some villagers will live too far away to be able to walk to them! 34. If the proposals go ahead there should be a major road project to connect the new development to the A50 to alleviate traffic problems in Willington. Link the proposed development to the A50 by a new access road and give it its own identity thereby preserving the identity and village character of Willington. 35. Impact of construction traffic on existing infrastructure if application approved. There is an understanding the development could take 8 - 10 years. The presence of construction traffic will pose an increase in the risk to the safety of pedestrians and other road users. 36. No mention of bridleways despite relatively high number of stables and riding establishments in the area.
SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE
37. Existing schools already oversubscribed – they will not be able to meet increased need (primary & secondary) and class sizes will become even larger. The new development will be within the John Port catchment area. Concern is expressed that the John Port catchment area could be moved and the children of the existing Willington Village will be sent to schools in Sinfin and Derby because of this new development. No plans for secondary school provision are mentioned within the proposed plans. 38. Proposed extension to Findern School will still not be enough to cater for the increased number of children from this new development as well as the existing villages. The Willington School should be extended. Increased pupil intake will lead to more traffic congestion at drop off/pick up times. 39. Health services in area already over-subscribed – is the proposed new health centre in addition to or replacing the existing one in Willington? 40. Village already lacks suitable social provision and there are no plans for any further provision in Willington village. The Scout Group is a valued member of the local community and may lose its meeting point if Npower ceases leasing the building to the group. The current sports facilities available in the village are more than adequate and many are underused – are the additional facilities only being included to appease the local community. 41. Proposed shopping area/local centre could have a detrimental effect on the services provided in the existing village centre and could lead to their closure. 42. Plans are inconsistent with Derbyshire Dales PCT’s aspirations for a new surgery at Willington. 43. Higher crime rates and anti-social behaviour associated with large housing estates. There is a lack of policing in area at present, how will they cope with the pressures 1,000 extra houses in the area will bring to the area? The same questions arise for the fire and ambulance services. Page 65 of 72 65 44. How are the ‘spiritual needs’ of the community to be addressed, there are no proposals for further church sites – the graveyard already needs extending, how will it cope with community of a further 1,000 houses. 45. The new development will impact on refuse collection and the landfill site at Newhall. The existing recycling centre in Willington is very well used –new facilities should be provided on the new housing site. 46. If the development is to go ahead, the maximum number of benefits (village hall, doctors surgery and road improvements for existing village centre) should be obtained from the developers and a cast iron guarantee that they will be provided. The developers are doubling the number of houses in Willington but not doubling the amount of new facilities! 47. Current service supplies (gas, water, electric) struggle to meet existing demands at times – how will the new development affect this? 48. Already have 3 pubs in village, why do we need a restaurant? This will further increase traffic problems by attracting visitors. None of the community structures listed in the application are facilities that will be provided automatically by the applicant/developers, they are listed as opportunities only.
FLOODING
49. Inspector’s Report on the SDLP has already concluded: “the flood risk should be regarded as unacceptable”. It is known that the site is liable to flooding. Development of site will also increase surface run-off that will further exacerbate the flooding issue. Predicted climate changes will further exacerbate the existing flooding situation let alone the situation arising from developing on the flood plain. 50. Misleading information – applicants’ plans indicate that the area does not flood as they are using out of date plans. Is a privately engineered flood map for the power station site legal and should SDDC accept it in association with a planning application. Any flood defences built to protect the proposal site will have repercussions for the villages of Findern, Willington and further up/down stream. There will be difficulty in getting insurance cover due to flood risk that will only get worse with more development on this site. Development should be restricted to that part of site outside floodplain – reduce house numbers and return remainder of site to woodland. 51. The council should provide monies to improve flood defences and provide house contents insurance at reasonable prices if the development is permitted. The houses in the village will no doubt become more difficult to insure. 52. According to Derby Evening Telegraph (08/02/06) Derby City Council is reported to be considering developers’ plans to extend Heatherton by 1,000 houses. Other major developments are proposed and as land in Heatherton is mostly impermeable clay, the run-off from this development will rapidly find its way into Twyford Brook, close to the power station, which will have a knock on effect to the flooding issues here! There is no evidence that the Heatherton development has formed any part of the modelling for RWE Npower’s submission.
Page 66 of 72 66 DRAINAGE
53. Existing sewage and drainage systems are overloaded. Back-ups are suffered regularly due to inadequate and damaged pipes.
ALTERNATIVE USES
54. With the prospect of electricity shortages in the near future (due to the closure of many old power stations and no replacement generating capacity), Willington is an ideal site to build a gas-fired power station with its expensive infrastructure already in place. With the future power generation policy under national debate at present why not reserve the site for a future power use? Shouldn’t both local and national government policy be concentrated on encouraging redundant power station into uses for alternative energy generation and discouraging the site owners from becoming real estate developers? 55. Why not develop the whole site as a nature reserve or provide provision for walking and cycling, or develop for leisure facilities – e.g. a golf course that could serve all the surrounding villages? Integrate it into the National Forest – with tree planting and provision of a lake to take some pressure off the river during flooding. Redevelop site with a ‘Conkers’ style scheme or one based on Rosliston Forestry Centre 56. Develop the site as a railway station.
MISCELLANEOUS
57. It would not be democratic to make a decision based on recommendations from parties with a financial interest in the land/development. 58. Frequent use of term ‘sustainability’ but will construction methods conform to sustainability criteria – triple glazing, solar power, etc? 59. Has the fact that there is a substantial amount of power transmission equipment and overhead transmission cables adjacent to the site been considered when deciding to allow a housing development on this site due to the effects of electro-magnetic fields on human health?
One letter of support has been received on the basis that the use for housing would be preferable to the use of the site for waste disposal.
Highfields Farm
11 Letters have been received objecting to the development on the following grounds: - l) The development of the sites on the south side of Derby is premature and anti-democratic – there should be a proper consideration of the alternatives through the Development Plan process. Sufficient sites exist in Derby and South Derbyshire to meet the requirements up to a minimum of 2014 and allocations beyond that date should be done through the emerging Local Development Framework documents and the urban capacity studies for Derby City and South Derbyshire. Page 67 of 72 67 m) Significant additions to the local area would arise (7000 additional people), significant traffic movements, new gas boilers and loss of agricultural land. n) The owner of the farm in the middle of the site asserts that she enjoys a right of way across the site that has been recently resurfaced. The right of way is kept locked for most of the day. o) There should be no direct access onto Bakeacre Lane in any circumstances. Bakeacre Lane could not cope with the extra traffic. Littleover in grid locked in the morning and afternoon school peaks p) There is a significant problem of flooding in the area and this should be seriously considered. The existing balancing pond cannot cope and in the winter months the fields become flooded. (The person making this comment says that he has no objection in principle to the development). q) The fields should be kept; there are already large developments in this area (Heatherton Village). The village will lose its identity and the proposals are ridiculous. The nature of Bakeacre Lane would be changed significantly with all the housing development on other side of the hedge. r) There are major transport issues arising from the submission of this application. The roads in and around Findern cannot cope with all the additional traffic. Public transport will be little used as the busses would be diverted from direct routes to meander round the new housing areas adding to existing journey times and discouraging people from using the services that may be provided in good faith but are unlikely to be a practicable alternative to the private car. s) The development will result in a quiet cul-de-sac becoming a major access point to the development site, which is totally unacceptable and would change the character immediately around the house and the wider area. t) The fields are refuge for wildlife with badgers and other fauna evident in the locality – it is a wonderful amenity for walkers, cyclists and horse riders. The farmers should be allowed to farm and the wildlife should be allowed to enjoy its natural habitat. u) The existing schools would not be able to cope and there is a need for a new secondary school, the existing ones are struggling to cope – some of them are already bursting at the seams. v) There has not been enough consultation with the local community; it seems that the Council is being tight lipped about the development – it could be perceived as a tactic to limit objections to the plans.
Wragley Way
A petition of some 1737 signatories objects in detail under the general headings of Transport and Movement, Community and Human Impact, and Built and Rural Environment. In summary the issues raised are:
a) Existing inadequate transport infrastructure would be unable to cope with additional vehicle movements and associated activities. b) Educational, medical and other local services would be unable to sustain the increased population. c) There would be loss of valuable productive farmland and loss of wildlife habitat. d) The scheme would be unsympathetic to the general character of the area, without having fully explored the potential of other suitable sites. Page 68 of 72 68
Some 160 individual representations have been received raising the following objections:
a) The proximity of the proposed development would be detrimental to wildlife interests. b) The development will have a severe impact upon the quality of life for all of the residents to Wragley Way and the wider community. c) The existing open green area between the City of Derby and the village of Barrow on Trent should be retained. d) Wragley Way is an already a busy vehicle thoroughfare with a long and verifiable history of road traffic accidents. The creation of another vehicular route has the potential to increase this danger. e) All routes into the proposed development are affected by narrow bridges, which are subject to a weight restriction. f) The existing public transport infrastructure to and from the proposed development sites is inadequate. g) The drainage and sewage system may be inadequate. h) The land is susceptible to flooding. i) The present road network leading in and out of the established residential areas of Sinfin Moor and Stenson Fields are in the main English country lanes. In an emergency these roads would become grid locked within minutes. j) Medical services are currently fully subscribed and would not be able to accept new patients. k) The local dental surgery is relocating to Blagraves Lane leaving the area without any dental facilities. l) Capacity in local schools would be totally insufficient to service the needs of a hugely enlarged suburbia. There would be potential danger for school children walking to school given significant increases in traffic emanating from the planned site. m) Leisure facilities are inadequate. n) Sinfin District Centre, in the present day, isn’t necessarily ideal for servicing the current needs of the locally established communities. o) The developer is pursuing the cheaper option of “green field” areas as opposed to “brown field” or even “white field” sites. p) Increased pollution and noise. q) Increased fly tipping, litter and abandoned cars. r) Increased chance of nuisance visits from residents of this proposal. s) The rural area would become urbanised. t) Devaluation of existing house prices would occur, based on the types of properties that are being proposed. u) The proposals are not aligned with guidance in PPG3 and are contrary to the appropriately applied policies within the Structure Plan. v) PPS1- Delivering Sustainable Development – the application site does not promote a sustainable pattern of development, as set out in paragraphs 4 and 5 of this policy. w) The application is contrary to the adopted Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands. In particular, this development is contrary to Policies 2, 3 & 20. Page 69 of 72 69 x) The application is a departure from the development plan and should be referred to the Secretary of State. y) The Environmental Statement does not fully assess the impact of both developments (0070 & 0075). z) Three-storey buildings would be entirely out of keeping with the locality. aa) Within the areas covered by these applications there is an area of land designated “R.I.G.S”. (Regionally Important Geological Site) and the building of homes would mean the loss of this designated site forever. bb) The elevated A50 road with all its noise and atmospheric pollution would pose a health risk to anyone living in the new development. cc) The electricity pylons and cables, which cross the proposed site, pose a threat to the health and well being of anyone living in their immediate vicinity. ee)Existing gas and electricity supply lines may not cope with the additional loads to be placed on them and if not further construction and disruption may be required
Boulton Moor
160 letters have been received from households, individuals, groups and companies raising the following comment and objections:
a) There is no need for the development. b) There would be traffic congestion, with resultant noise and pollution. c) Existing surface water drainage problems would be exacerbated and flood risk increased. d) Wildlife would be adversely affected. e) The position of the school would cause people to cross Snelsmoor Lane, causing delays to traffic. f) Public transport is poor and there would be traffic congestion around the proposed school access. g) There would be increased crime and additional strain on policing. h) The application is premature. i) The application disregards the Local Plan Inspector’s report, which sought to confine development to the west of Snelsmoor Lane. j) Brownfield land should be developed first. k) The park and ride site would cause additional congestion and safety issues. The road system is inadequate. l) Low cost housing would cause increased crime. m) The EIA does not seem to deal with implications for land away from the site. n) The playing fields would attract vandalism. o) The juxtaposition of differing densities of development would be visually unattractive. p) There would be substantial increased traffic through the local villages. q) The countryside would be harmed. r) Dental and medical facilities are inadequate. s) 1 –1.5 acres of land should be provided for a meeting room for religious purposes. Page 70 of 72 70 t) Connecting the existing estate to Snelmoor Lane and providing pedestrian access to the new school would result in increased traffic and pollution for residents. u) The shops would attract crime and cause disturbance and light pollution. v) Building operations would cause disturbance and pollution. w) Emergency services would be stretched. x) Trees and hedges would be lost. y) Access to the playing fields across the Derby Spur would be dangerous. z) Secondary school provision is inadequate. aa) Willington Power Station should be developed first. bb) Distress to horses on the public bridleway would be caused by increased traffic. cc) The proposed community facilities would be to the detriment of other local facilities in nearby villages. dd) Water supplies would be adversely affected during construction. ee) Services may be inadequate. ff) Protected species may be adversely affected. gg) The character of local villages would be harmed. hh) Parking provision would be inadequate. ii) The existing estate does not need a bus service. jj) Landscaping would be inadequate. kk) The merits of competing sites should be considered. ll) The site would be visible from the green belt and is not marked by any clear physical boundary that would limit development in the long term. mm) The proposal is not sustainable in terms of encouraging means of transport other than cars. nn) The site is not allocated in the development plan. oo) The playing fields would prejudice proposed inclusion in the green belt. pp) The character and setting of Elvaston Castle country park would be harmed. qq) The proposal is in conflict with regional planning policy. rr) There is a need for a local community hall. ss) The proposed bus route through the existing estate would cause loss of privacy for residents. tt) Sewerage disposal is not adequately addressed in the application. uu) There would be increased light pollution from the development.
Stenson Fields
10 letters have been received raising the following objections:
a) The local road network is inadequate and there would be increased congestion and risk of accidents. Accidents have occurred on Stenson Road and its junctions. b) Pedestrians from the development crossing Stenson Road would be at risk of accidents. c) Schools, medical and other services are inadequate. d) Existing brownfield sites should be used instead of this greenfield site.
Page 71 of 72 71 e) The development would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area and its open rural character. f) The drainage system any be inadequate. g) Wildlife would be adversely affected. h) The Stenson Road rail bridge should be renewed to allow two-way traffic.
Page 72 of 72 72