Proposed Development at Marston House Farm

Proposed Development at Marston House Farm Questions/comments for Scott O’Dell at Fisher German 1. The “detailed traffic survey” took place between 09.00 and 10.00 on an August weekday in the school holidays. August is a traditional holiday time; when one might expect the local roads to be quieter. The survey times also fall outside what Ardent determine as peak hours, so it seems less than detailed or robust. Your response? No detailed survey was undertaken or in fact referred to within the Technical Note (TN) produced by Ardent Consulting Engineers (ACE). As stated within Paragraph 1.9 of the TN... “The site and surrounding highway network has been observed during a detailed site visit that was undertaken on Wednesday 23rd August 2017, between 0900 and 1000 hours. During the site visit, there were no major road works within the surrounding highway network and weather conditions were clear and dry. Detailed measurements and photographs were also taken of the site and the surrounding highway network”. A site visit was undertaken to observe the existing conditions with regards to widths, footpaths etc, the level of development in this rural location does not warrant any detailed traffic count survey as the impact is not likely to be detrimental or result in overcapacity at surrounding off- site junctions. 2. With a maximum number of 57 cars on the site, adding only 14 additional journeys between 08.00 and 09.00 and 18 between 17.00 and 18.00 seems very modest and based on quite narrow time bands. Given the mixed nature of employment in the area, it seems likely that peak should more correctly be deemed 07.00 – 09.00 and 17.00 – 19.00. Many people in the village and nearby are employed at organisations like JCB and Toyota working shifts. There are also professional and other commuters travelling to Derby, Nottingham, Stoke and further. There are also Self-employed and employed builders and agricultural workers (some of whom drive small and medium sized vans) and leave and return earlier and later in the day. Given that the proposed mix of housing will cater for a similar mix of people, it is likely that commuter times will vary beyond the peaks suggested and exceed the numbers predicted. Your response? The TRICS database was used to provide robust trip rates of an existing development with similar characteristics including location and properties (both of which affect the level of vehicle movements). The generic peak periods for residential developments are 0800-0900 hours and 1700-1800 hours, as this is when the existing highway network (including major Trunk roads) are at their peak with regards to traffic flows. This is confirmed within Table 5.1 of the TN, which shows that the highest existing trip rates occur during these peak hour periods. As with the majority of all residential areas, not 100% of all residents will leave / enter the site at any one time. As the existing external highway network is at the peak during the above time periods, this is assessed to determine if off-site impacts would occur. The traffic generation calculations within the TN indicate that the proposed development would result in an increase of only 14 movements during the morning peak period and 18 movements in the evening peak hours which equates to approximately 1 vehicle every 4 minutes during the morning and 1 vehicle every 3 minutes during the evening peak periods, which is not considered to be severe. Nevertheless, taking into consideration the above questions regarding peak periods of 0700-0900 and 1700-1900 hours, the development would not exceed 30 movements per hour and would still not result in any detrimental impact on highway safety, or cause any congestion issues along Thurvaston Road. The questioned peak periods would result in approximately 1 vehicle every 4 minutes during the morning (0700-0900) and 1 vehicle every 4 minutes during the evening (1700-1900), and therefore still not result in severe impact. 3. The houses designated A B and E have no garages and are on relatively small plots. What provision or constraints will there be to add additional storage i.e. garden sheds, on what look like modest garden areas? Your response? The gardens are considered to be proportionate to the size of the dwelling. ‘A’ are bungalows which would be designed to meet the needs of an ageing population where it is often undesirable to have to maintain excessive areas of garden space. The design of each dwelling, its associated garden space and the provision of external storage are all matters which will be considered in more detail at the Reserved Matters stage should outline planning permission be granted. 4. The three houses designated E have quite narrow driveways accessed directly off Thurvaston Road. Even allowing for road widening, residents (with up to 6+ cars) will have no capacity to turn around and will therefore be backing out onto the road, very close to the tight corner opposite Elm Cottage and directly opposite the main development; therefore, increasing the potential for accidents and congestion; particularly from the Cubley Road junction. Your response? The driveways for each of these dwellings measure 2.75 metres wide in accordance with Figure DG20 of the 6Cs Design Guide, which is Derbyshire County Council’s adopted design guide. Turning facilities for private driveways are required where a proposed development takes access from a road with a speed limit above 40mph or for roads subject to speed limits less than 40mph on any road carrying 300 vehicles per hour at its peak. As part of the adjacent development assessment (Application Reference 16/00099/FUL), a vehicle speed survey was undertaken within close proximity to the development frontage. This highlighted that a total of only 25 were observed travelling along Thurvaston Road during a 3-hour period within an existing 30mph speed limit. Therefore, based upon current design guidance, turning facilities are not required in this instance and should not result in safety concerns. Furthermore, it was highlighted that visibility splays exceeding that of the recorded calculated splays (34 metres to the northeast and 32 metres to the southwest) based on recorded vehicle speeds can be achieved. 5. There is some heavy and agricultural traffic through Marston Village at all times. However, this is more significant on Riggs Lane, Barway and Cubley Road, particularly at certain times of the year. The additional traffic generated by the proposed development will place an additional traffic burden and safety risks at the junctions at either end of Thurvaston Road. Neither of these junctions have clear visibility to the right or left. In addition, there are no speed restrictions in place on Barway and Marston Bank. This should also be considered in the light of the other two recently approved developments. Your response? The proposed development should not exceed the threshold of 30 two-way movements during any peak hour, which is the benchmark for when significant highway impact could occur. A review of the Crashmap website confirms that identified that there no recorded accidents in close proximity of the site frontage, on Thurvaston Road, Barway or any of the surrounding roads between 2012 and 2016 (most recent data available). Only a single incident was recorded on Cubley Lane within this time period. This occurred in April 2016, was classed as ‘slight’ in severity and did not involve pedestrians or cyclists. As there are no existing highway safety concerns within the surrounding area, it is highly unlikely that the minor increase in movements associated with the development would result in highway safety implications. 6. The road access from all sides of the village will not sustain the increase in traffic and Derbyshire County Council have made it clear on numerous occasions that there is no requirement for speed restrictions on Barway and Marston Bank (as above) Your response? As confirmed the development would not exceed the 30 movement peak hour thresholds (even if all movements during the peak periods travelled through a single existing junction such as Cubley Lane / Thurvaston Road), and the increase in traffic as a result of the proposed development should not result in any detrimental impact on highway safety, or cause any congestion issues. 7. Maintenance of the local road network is patchy to say the least and potholes are a standing item on the Parish Council agenda. Additional traffic will add to the problems with potholes and worn roads, particularly on Cubley Road, Riggs Lane, Barway and Roston Common. It would be nice to think that an increase in Council Tax income would mitigate this, but there are certainly concerns that it would not. Your response? The maintenance of the existing publicly maintained highway is the reasonability of DCC and the minor movements associated with the development would not result in excessive additional wear. Nevertheless, the development includes the widening and resurfacing of Thurvaston Road in vicinity of the site frontage. 8. Thurvaston Road is described in the Transport Technical Note as being “...an unclassified single carriageway two-way road...” In fact, over many sections between the development site and its junction with Cubley Road, it is less than 4 metres wide and in several places the width reduces to 3.6 metres, with no provisions for pedestrians or cyclists. In other words, this is already a very dangerous section of road. The current width is incompatible with the need for vehicles to pass cyclists safely, leave alone allow unrestricted two-lane operation of traffic, and there may well be increased access problems for the most recent design of service vehicles, etc. What provisions will be made to ensure safety on this section of road? A review of recorded accidents within the most current 5-year period clearly confirms that Thurvaston Road currently has no highway safety issues and is therefore not considered to be already very dangerous. As there are no current highway safety issues along Thurvaston Road and that the development would not result in a significant increase in traffic movements, no off-site improvement scheme should be necessary. Furthermore, during the site visit the widths along Thurvaston Road did not appear to raise concern. There are some areas where widths drop below 4.1 metres wide (suitable width for two cars to pass), however these do not extend for excessive distances or result in restricted forward visibility. Nevertheless, a widening scheme has been proposed along the site frontage on Thurvaston Road where the narrowest carriageway width is located.

In consideration of proposing a small residential scheme served form Thurvaston Road, we have reviewed and settled on a balance between the two following objectives: • Preserving the character of the area and the design aspirations for the scheme; and • Achieving a level of acceptable highway safety for users. With consideration of Manual for Streets 2: Furthermore, Paragraph 1.2.1 provides a series of principles, a selection of these state: ‘Emphasising a collaborative approach to the delivery of streets. Many busy streets and rural highways require a ‘non-standard’ approach to respond to context and this can be achieved by working as a multidisciplinary team and by looking at and researching other similar places that work well. It is important to include all skill sets required to meet scheme objectives; Developing street character types on a location-specific basis requiring a balance to be struck between place and movement in many of the busier streets; Encouraging innovation with a flexible approach to street layouts and the use of locally distinctive, durable and maintainable materials. Using the minimum of highway design features necessary to make the streets work properly. The starting point for any well designed street is to begin with nothing and then add only what is necessary in practice’. Paragraph 2.7.10 states there are ‘often concerns over the urbanising effect and visual intrusion of unsympathetic highway features such as traffic signs, road markings, street furniture and excessive carriageway width. These can be in conflict with local place functions’. Paragraph 2.7.11 states that ‘in the past highway authorities may have chosen to apply national road standards through rural villages on the basis that the streets are on a classified route. Unless the streets are part of the trunk road network, there is no requirement to apply DMRB standards, and a more place-sensitive approach should be used’. Paragraph 2.7.12 advises that ‘as with larger settlements, experience shows that a more sensitive approach can bring significant benefits’. The development proposals seek to achieve two things; an ability to retain the rural character of the area, whilst giving an acceptable and safe highway standard to serve the development. In terms of MfS, this approach would apply the promoted scheme, reflective of local context and without an excessive carriageway width – but not to the detriment of highway safety. Critically, this is not incongruous to the locality. Thurvaston Road operates safely and retains a distinct favourable character. The quality of the appearance is quite different to where a standard design approach has been taken and the development proposals shall not significantly contribute to the existing highway traffic flows which is currently functioning without significant or unacceptable risk. 9. Amongst the planning documents submitted, there does not appear to be a response from the Highways Department. This seems unusual for a development of this size, particularly in the context of 4. 5. And 6 above; and the other recently approved developments. Are we waiting for one? If not, why not? Following the validation of the planning application Derbyshire Dales would have consulted the Highway Authority as a statutory consultee. They will issue their response in due course. 10. The proposed plans allow for 30% affordable housing. Could this be clarified, as follows: a. Will this be affordable housing with a local residency clause, social housing administered by a third party i.e. a Housing Association, or a mixture of both? b. What is the developers’ definition of affordable? This is a vague term and it would be useful to have this clarified in a specific local context rather than against National house prices. A band of proposed sale values would, therefore, be very helpful. Your detailed and quantified response would be helpful The approach to be taken regarding affordable house is yet to be agreed with Derbyshire Dales and their Housing Enabler. We are currently proposing that this should be provided on site and we would support a clause in the S106 legal agreement which prioritises people with local connections. The affordable housing is most likely to go to a Registered Provider (a local example would be Waterloo Housing Group of which Dales Housing is now a part of). It is important to note the difference between ‘low cost housing’ which is still market housing and ‘affordable housing’. The definition of affordable housing is set out in national policy via the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) under Annex 2: Affordable housing: Social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing, provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices. Affordable housing should include provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision. Social rented housing is owned by local authorities and private registered providers (as defined in section 80 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008), for which guideline target rents are determined through the national rent regime. It may also be owned by other persons and provided under equivalent rental arrangements to the above, as agreed with the local authority or with the Homes and Communities Agency. Affordable rented housing is let by local authorities or private registered providers of social housing to households who are eligible for social rented housing. Affordable Rent is subject to rent controls that require a rent of no more than 80% of the local market rent (including service charges, where applicable). Intermediate housing is homes for sale and rent provided at a cost above social rent, but below market levels subject to the criteria in the Affordable Housing definition above. These can include shared equity (shared ownership and equity loans), other low cost homes for sale and intermediate rent, but not affordable rented housing. Homes that do not meet the above definition of affordable housing, such as “low cost market” housing, may not be considered as affordable housing for planning purposes. Unfortunately, at this stage I am not able to provide predicted sale values. However, the illustrative layout shows how the site could deliver quality ‘low cost housing’ which are inherently designed to keep market prices as low as possible. This is achieved through one or more of the following: their modest size, number of bedrooms (generally 2 or 3), type (modest detached, semi-detached or terraced) and not having elements such as garaging. 11. What evidence is there that more houses will bring extra children into the Primary school as it has been proved that many existing residents already send their children elsewhere? Your response? The provision of family housing will inevitably increase the number of families in the village. We cannot make people send their children to the village school, but it would make sense for a family moving to the area to choose to send their children or child to a school nearby. The most effective way to encourage people send their children to the school in the village is by making the school as attractive as possible. The proposal supports the aspirations of the school through the provision of a woodland for natural education. The provision of an alternative access to the village hall scheme will allow the school to retain its playing field whilst unlocking a village hall which is fit for their needs. 12. There are several references to bus stops within walking distance. It should be made quite clear that there is no scheduled public transport serving Marston Montgomery Village. The 005 route serves only QUEGS pupils travelling to and from Ashbourne; although it is right to mention the Dial a Ride Scheme. There are three bus stops referred to within the TN that are served by either the 005- school bus or the Dial-a-ride service. No reference was made to additional public bus services and this is what was taken into account within the assessment. 13. What guarantees are there that your developer will provide access for the Radmore Homes development to go ahead and would that mean that both sites could or would be developed simultaneously? Your response? – The provision of an alternative access to unlock the adjacent scheme would be a significant benefit and we would be willing to work with Derbyshire Dales to understand how and if this should be secured as part of an approval. Our scheme is considered acceptable on its own merits, but we are keen to ensure that the benefits to the village are maximised. It is not possible to say at this stage if the two sites would be developed simultaneously or not as we are only in the first stages of the planning process. 14. Street Lighting and Light Pollution. There is very limited street lighting in the village and therefore little corresponding light pollution. a. What plans, if any, are there to include low or high-level street lamps on or adjacent to the development site? b. What restrictions, if any, would be made for residents to limit the amount of outside sensor and/or security lighting to any of the properties, either during construction or once sold? Your responses? Lighting arrangements for the development are a matter which will be determined as part of a Reserved Matters Application should permission be granted. Any lighting will need to be designed so that it does not adversely impact upon neighbouring amenities and will need to take account of its impact on ecology. 15. How does this fit with the agreed Local Plan which specifically states "no further housing development in Marston Montgomery" Your response? The emerging Local Plan for Derbyshire Dales, which is nearing adoption following the publication of modifications, does not contain a policy which states that Marston Montgomery will not see any further housing development. Marston Montgomery is identified as a Forth Tier settlement (Policy S3). Residential development within Fourth Tier settlements is considered acceptable which is commensurate with the scale and function of the settlement providing it is required to help maintain existing facilities and/or meet housing needs accommodated through infill or consolidation. 16. The consensus seems to be that there might be a more positive response if the scale of the development were smaller. There is already approval for another 31 houses in Marston. Another 25 is too many, although many people would welcome the tidying up of a site which has been a long-term eyesore. Your response? It is understood that some people are accepting of the proposal in principle but would prefer to see a limited amount of development. The proposal is for 24 additional dwellings and 1 replacement dwelling which will deliver a number of key benefits: • Remediation of an unkept site which adversely affects the character and appearance of the village; • Increasing the number of children attending the primary school; • Provision of an alternative access option to the adjacent village hall scheme; • Provision of affordable housing (30%); • Highway improvements with the widening of Thurvaston Road along the site frontage and improved visibility when exiting the adjacent car park; • Improvements to Marston Montgomery FP 29; • Extension of the existing play area; • Helping to address the affordability issue in the village for younger generations; • Providing housing suitable for an ageing population; • A comprehensive landscaping scheme including the retention of all Category ‘B’ trees; • Provision of a woodland garden for the Primary School to support natural education and increasing the school’s attractiveness to prospective pupils and parents. These benefits cannot be delivered with a scheme that only provides a handful of dwellings. The proposal is not for 25 large executive houses but instead looks to provide lower cost housing which meets local needs in addition to providing the required 30% affordable housing contribution.

Thank you. See page 3 Could all responses be emailed by 7pm tonight to: Mick Butler – Chair of the Parish Council Rob Butler – Parish Councillor Liz Archer - Parish Councillor Nick Brown – Parish Councillor Pete Collyer – Parish Councillor cc. Olivia Harrison – Clerk to the Parish Council Could we also have a hard copy posted to Ken Bull – Deputy Chair of the Parish Council as he does not have internet access You will find all the email addresses on the email sent earlier