Preferred Growth Strategy Summary of Comments'

Amber Valley Local Plan

Report of Publicity and Consultation on the Preferred Growth Strategy

This page is intentionally blank

Contents Page No.

1. Introduction 3

2. Public events and community involvement 4

3. Summary of comments received from the public 6

4. Summary of comments from Parish/Town Councils 12

5. Summary of comments from Borough Councillors 18

6. Summary of comments from key bodies 20

7. Summary of comments from site promoters 34 on scale of housing growth

8. Summary of comments from site promoters on the 40 preferred growth sites

9. Summary of comments on other potential strategic sites 47

1. Introduction

The Borough Council produced the Preferred Growth Strategy as part of the preparation of the Core Strategy for Amber Valley. Derby City Council and South Derbyshire District Council also produced Core Strategies for their administrative areas on an aligned timetable. These three authorities form the Derby Housing Market Area.

The Preferred Growth Strategy set out proposals for the number of new homes to be provided in the Borough up to 2028, as well as identifying the Council’s preferred locations for strategic sites to contribute to housing growth.

The Preferred Growth Strategy was approved by the Council on 26 September 2012 and was published for public consultation and community involvement from 30 September to 21 December 2012.

The process of consultation and community involvement included a series of public events held in key locations across the Borough to enable local people to learn more about the proposals.

Specific consultation on the Preferred Growth Strategy was also undertaken with a range of statutory bodies and other individual and organisations, as well as with those who have responded to previous consultation on the emerging Core Strategy.

2. Public events and community involvement

There were 7 public ‘drop in’ consultation events held in the following areas:

 Thursday 18 October 2012 John Flamsteed School, Denby  Friday 19 October 2012 Alfreton Community Hall, Alfreton  Monday 22 October 2012 Ripley Leisure Centre, Ripley  Tuesday 23 October 2012 Arkwright Suite, Lion Hotel, Belper  Wednesday 24 October 2012 Community Centre, Heanor  Thursday 25 October 2012 Peverel House, Codnor  Friday 26 October 2012 Kilburn Village Hall, Kilburn

John Flamsteed School, Denby

Around 40 local residents attended this public consultation, 9 of which submitted a consultation response form at the event.

Alfreton Community Hall, Alfreton

Around 51 local residents attended this public consultation, 21 of which submitted a consultation response form at the event.

Ripley Leisure Centre, Ripley

Around 50 local residents attended this public consultation, 9 of which submitted a consultation response form at the event.

Lion Hotel, Belper

Around 30 local residents attended this public consultation, 6 of which submitted a consultation response form at the event.

Heanor Community Centre, Heanor

Around 40 local residents attended this public consultation, 16 of which submitted a consultation response form at the event.

Peverel House, Codnor

Around 125 local residents attended this public consultation, 39 of which submitted a consultation response form at the event.

Kilburn Village Hall, Kilburn

Around 40 local residents attended this public consultation, 4 of which submitted a consultation response form at the event.

3. Summary of comments received from the public

In total 796 individual representations were received on the Preferred Growth Strategy for Amber Valley. Derby City Council received a total of 164 representations and South Derbyshire District Council received a total of 297 representations on their Preferred Growth Strategies.

The Scale of Housing Growth

The majority of representations stated that the proposed provision of 9,000 new homes in Amber Valley between 2008 and 2028 was too high.

The reasons given for this are as follows:

 This number of new homes is not required  There are few jobs to enable people to afford to buy the houses  There are many empty properties in the Borough, and these should be brought back into use first.  There is a lack of infrastructure to support this amount of housing  Houses that already have planning permission are not being built

The Preferred Strategic Sites

The main concerns raised in respect of each of the preferred strategic sites are as follows:

AV2 – Outseats Farm, Alfreton

 Development would result in the loss of greenfield land  Existing roads are already very congested  The access arrangements are unsuitable  Loss of wildlife  Local infrastructure will not be able to deal with the extra demand  Part of the site is within an outer consultation zone for hazardous substances

Approximately 120 individuals commented on this site, of that around 89 objected, 22 supported and 11 stated it should be modified.

AV8 Alfreton Road, Codnor

 Green Belt land should not be developed  Local infrastructure will not be able to deal with the extra demand  Extra traffic will be created on already congested roads  The by-pass may not be implemented  There is no evidence of a need for a by-pass  Development of this site would detract from the setting of Codnor Castle and the Codnor Park Conservation Area  Existing footpaths and access to Codnor Castle would be adversely affected  Former coalmining activities will detract from the viability of the site  Overhead electricity lines cross the site

Approximately 190 individuals commented on this site of that around 166 objected, 14 supported and 13 thought it should be modified. The Council also received a 1,091 signature petition in relation to this site from the ‘Stop 500’ Residents Group. The petition raised the following objections:

1. The entire site lies within nationally protected Green Belt, the release of which is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework. The proposed release of Green Belt is totally against the wishes of Amber Valley residents who have continually expressed overwhelming support for the protection of the Green Belt at each consultation stage in the Local Plan preparation to date.

2. We do not believe that the best practice has been followed at each stage with regard to the required integral sustainability appraisal process to inform the preferred site options that have been put forward. This has no doubt had an effect on the preferred site selection process, which has not been open, clear and transparent. Amber Valley residents are therefore unsure as to how decisions have been made.

3. We believe the use of brownfield sites in preference to greenfield sites to accommodate future growth across the Borough has not been fully and robustly explored.

4. Codnor does not have the necessary services and facilities to support this level of growth in a sustainable way. Over 1,500 new houses are being proposed within a mile radius of Codnor. This concentration of preferred sites in the Ripley/Codnor area is not a sustainable approach to meeting the housing needs of the Amber Valley Borough area as a whole.

5. As no transport study including a cost benefit analysis or business case has been undertaken with regard to the need for a by-pass nor alternative traffic management options explored the exceptional circumstances to justify the proposed release of green belt at this location cannot be evidenced.

AV13 Land North of Denby

 The size of the site is too large  Too many houses are proposed  Concerns regarding the need to remediate the tar pits  Flooding issues  Development on this scale will result in a major impact on local infrastructure, especially the roads  Loss of countryside and wildlife

Approximately 150 individuals commented on this site of that around 82 objected, 38 supported and 16 thought it should be modified.

Denby Footpaths Group

Whilst Denby Footpaths Group neither support or oppose the overall strategy, it was the group’s opinion that certain factors need to be taken into consideration in relation to the planned development in Denby: - Classification of land. - Green Belt development. - Historic and heritage aspects. - Link to Derwent Valley Heritage Site. - Other opportunities for the land.

Classification of land: The land has been identified as 40% Greenfield and 60% Brownfield. Most of the area covered, although previously ‘developed’, has returned to a natural state and is Greenfield. Due to this, the figures quoted are misleading to readers of the Preferred Growth Strategy. The land stands out in the tables as an obvious development site as 23% of the need can be met by 900 houses being built on land incorrectly classified. Whilst other development is mainly on Greenfield, readers will be swayed by the table and figures presented as Brownfield development would be a preferential choice. This is evident in the comments in “A Significant Opportunity For Development On A Strategic Scale At Denby (2012)”. This document indicates support for this area to be developed in preference to Greenfield and indicates that this support is not from Denby residents. The review of the 2008 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment will hopefully address this issue once published.

Over the years, Denby residents have suffered much from large scale disruption from opencast mining and other industry. It is only now that they are able to enjoy this site as it returns to a natural state. The site is now rich in wildlife, and nature is recovering. It is valuable land for the biodiversity of the area. Nature conservation areas have been identified but will potentially be disturbed by development on such a large scale. Green Belt Development: The northern part of the land is located in Green Belt and should therefore be precluded from development. Historic and Heritage aspects: The group were disappointed that officers present at public meetings knew little or nothing about the rich industrial heritage and history of the area. Listed are a few of the main features of the area: - The early railway developments in the area are of key historic importance. The routes are still evident today and their preservation is paramount. A key document written by Trevor Griffin (February 2012) has been received by Amber Valley Borough Council. It covers most comprehensively the history and development of the railways. “The railway is an important relic of a Derbyshire based industry that contributed to the worldwide development of railways as a major form of transport”. - Bassett Pit worked from 1817 to 1866 - Slater’s Brick and Tile Works operated from 1874 to 1977 - Denby Iron Works from 1860 to 1929 - Park Hall, a grade II listed building dating back to 1702 - In 1901, Tarmac was ‘invented’ changing road building around the world.

Denby Footpaths Group is working on a scheme to have this heritage recognised with installation of relevant signage boards and the possibility of a partial reconstruction of a railway section.

Link to Derwent Valley Heritage Site:

The area identified for development falls on the border of the Derwent Valley Heritage Site. The development of the Belper and Morley Park railway was critical to the success of the Derwent Valley Mills during their development. The route of this railway links the two sites physically along with the network of ancient rights of way running through the area.

Other opportunities for the land:

The document Have Your Say 2011 raised two main issues that could be met by this land.

One need identified was for the promotion of tourist attractions. There is vast potential for this site to attract tourists into Amber Valley due to the key heritage and historic aspects identified already in this response. How many other sites can offer so many world firsts? The development of Denby Pottery will bring in tourism and this site is easily accessible from the Pottery making a ‘day out’ in Amber Valley. Similarly, development of the Ripley to Long Eaton Greenway will bring in visitors as the route passes through the development site. Future development of greenways in the area as identified in the East Midlands Greenway Strategy (DCC) will link the area into Shipley Park and the Nutbrook Trail.

A second need identified was the protection and provision of public open spaces. This area already meets this need and could be further enhanced by developing the open spaces for recreation (nature trails, trim tracks and cycle paths for example). Preserving historic hedgerows and protecting the biodiversity of the area would further improve this much used public open space.

Leisure needs are met by the area which provides a green open space for walkers and riders. Denby Footpaths Group is carrying out much needed improvements to the path network to make the area accessible and enjoyable. Derbyshire County Council has recently assisted this work by carrying out major improvements along the key route opening the connection once more to the Derwent Valley Heritage Site through Openwoodgate.

The Borough Council’s Vision as set out in its 2012-15 Corporate Improvement Plan is ‘Making Everywhere in Amber Valley a Great Place To Live’. Without housing development, this area fits the vision quoted by 2028 to have a ‘healthy...attractive place for people to live...and visit.’

To conclude, Denby Footpaths Group feel that Amber Valley Borough Council need to consider in much greater depth whether this development is really in the best interests of the whole borough bearing in mind the negative impact it would have on the area we have outlined.

AV14 – Newlands/Taylor Lane, Heanor

 Development would result in the loss of greenfield land  Flooding issues  Increase in traffic congestion  Local infrastructure will not be able to deal with the extra demand  New industrial units are not needed in the current climate

Approximately 100 individuals commented on this site, of that around 60 objected, 22 supported and 16 stated it should be modified.

AV9 Coppice Farm, Ripley

 Development would result in the loss of greenfield land  Local infrastructure will not be able to deal with the extra demand  Unsuitable access on to a busy road  The rural character of the area will be lost  Extra traffic will be generated which will create more congestion

Approximately 100 individuals commented on this site of that around 80 objected, 14 supported and 9 thought it should be modified.

AV7 Nottingham Road, Ripley

 Green Belt land should not be developed  Traffic – the roads cannot cope with the additional traffic  Too many houses are proposed  Local infrastructure will not be able to deal with the extra demand  Another supermarket is not needed  The by-pass may not be implemented  There is no evidence of a need for a by-pass

Approximately 140 individuals commented on this site, of that around 108 objected, 17 supported and 13 thought it should be modified.

4. Summary of comments from Parish/Town Councils

Alfreton Town Council

Believe that the proposal for 9,000 new homes to be provided is too high, as the amount of housing need is significantly reducing because of the financial situation in this country.

Object to the Land at Outseats Farm, Alfreton (AV2) as a ‘Preferred Strategic Site’ for the following reasons:-

 Major concerns about traffic impact, congestion and safety  The unsafe access on to Mansfield Road  The land should remain as greenfield  Some areas in Alfreton are the most deprived in Amber Valley  The town has the least amount of public open space compared to other towns  Development of this site would have a detrimental effect on the ecology of the site  Development of the site would impact on the setting of Carnfield Hall, a grade II* listed building  The strain on local services would be significant  This site provides a buffer between Alfreton and South Normanton Other comments made:

 Land north of Denby will provide a significant amount of new housing  Any further growth should be within the outlying villages, specifically close to the A52 corridor into Derby

Codnor Parish Council

Object to the land at Alfreton Road, Codnor (AV8) as a ‘Preferred Strategic Site’ for the following reasons:-

 Concern over the release of the Green Belt  Codnor does not have the necessary services and facilities to support this level of growth in a sustainable way  The infrastructure is not designed to absorb such an increase in population  A by-pass will adversely affect the life of Codnor residents and businesses

The line of the potential new road has changed and has now become a ‘link road’. It is not a sufficient reason to release the Green Belt land.

Codnor Parish Council also held a consultation event on Friday 18 January 2013 where 110 questionnaires were completed by residents. Below are the collated results:

Q1. Is there a need to divert through traffic from the centre of Codnor?  Yes – 72 No – 26 Possibly - 1 No Answer – 1 Total – 110

Q2. The proposed route for the road is between Alfreton Road and the Castle which is in Green Belt. Is the use of Green Belt justified for this purpose?  Yes – 23 No – 84 Possibly – 0 No Answer – 3 Total – 110

Q3. If the road were built it could be one of two types, which would you prefer?  A ‘by-pass’ – high speed, no direct access Votes – 80  A ‘link road’ – 30mph speed limit, normal site junctions Votes – 10  No preference Votes - 20 Total – 110

Q4. The proposal also includes a plan to build 500 dwellings between the new road and Alfreton Road. Do you feel that the current services (schools, doctors etc.) we have in our village would be able to support the extra residents?  Yes – 2 No – 108 Total – 110

Q5. Is the use of ‘green belt’ justified for this purpose?  Yes – 9 No – 100 No Preference – 1 Total – 110

Q6. Having looked at the suggested layout, do you think the new residents would integrate with the existing village of Codnor?  Yes – 10 No – 95 No Preference – 5 Total - 110

There were 4 sheets with extra comments on, these are as follows:-

 Why do all levels of Government assume we want to live in large towns/cities.  If the development of 500 houses was to take place then the traffic would need to be diverted away from the centre of Codnor.  Why has the original plan for a by-pass now changed to include 500 houses. An increase in population would only add to the congestion.  We have a school that is too small, limited doctor provision, no dentist, no crèche and little sport provision. This would destroy the land where we take our children to play and walk on these green fields.

It was stated by the Parish Council that based on the consultation event results, is it quite obvious that this is not now perceived to be a sufficient reason to release the protected Green Belt land for development and is contrary to the spirit of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Denby Parish Council

Have concerns over the Land North of Denby (AV13), these are as follows:-

 The site is too large and would have a great an impact on the area as a whole  Any housing needs should be carried out pro rata to allow infrastructure which is already in place to cope with additional needs which will arise from the development  Would like to see an access directly to the A38 and to both carriageways (north and south). The transport network cannot withstand the burden of additional vehicles.  Would like to see the remediation of the tar pits  Objects to the large area identified in the consultation  Major concerns regarding potential flooding problems

Heanor and Loscoe Town Council

Have serious concerns over Land at Taylor Lane, Loscoe and Land at Newlands, Heanor (AV14) comments are as follows: -

 Increased traffic will be created by both sites. Heanor’s roads operate close to capacity already. Even if an access road to Taylor Lane was developed via Hogbarn Lane it would not be a total solution to the problem.  Both parts are comparatively isolated from the centre of town.  Both developments are sited in the Bailey Brook Flood Plain  Provision of school places in the area is already close to capacity, both primary and secondary schools would be struggling to take more pupils without significant development.  Medical provision in the Heanor area is at present at capacity  Local employment is at a premium in this area – these new housing developments would lead to an increase in commuter traffic.

The Parish Council are of the view that the housing component of the Amber Valley Borough Council Preferred Growth Strategy needs urgent re-visiting.

Kilburn Parish Council

Comments on Land North of Denby (AV13) are as follows:-

 The tar pits should be remediated before any development takes place  Park Hall Road, Rawson Green and Brickyard Lane cannot accommodate any additional traffic  Issues over infrastructure e.g. schools and doctors  The potential for development to increase flooding  A nature reserve including a memorial garden at the Toll Bar junction would need to be relocated

The Parish council would want funding from the developer if the development were to go ahead to improve play areas, upgrade the village hall and provide facilities for young people including an upgrade of the scout hut.

Kirk Langley Parish Council

Supports the decision to not identify greenfield land between Radbourne Lane and Brun Lane as suitable for construction of up to 9,000 houses for the following reasons:

 Any further development at Radbourne Lane would magnify the problems that have already been identified by the Parish Council that remain unresolved  Further development would lead to unacceptable levels of congestion due to inadequate road and public transport infrastructure  Ecclesbourne School has insufficient land to enable it to be enlarged.  The rural character of Kirk Langley would be lost  The lack of employment opportunities  A significant part of the land in question forms part of the historic setting of Kedleston Hall Historic Park and Garden

Mackworth Parish Council

Support the proposals for the Preferred Growth Strategy and agree that further land at Radbourne Lane, Mackworth and land at Markeaton Stones, Mackworth should not be considered for potential development in the future as there are insufficient facilities such as doctors, dentists and shops.

Ripley Town Council Object to the Land at Nottingham Road (AV7) as a ‘Preferred Strategic Site’ for the following reasons:-

 A large part of the site is within the Green Belt  Only a site with a 500+ capacity seems to have been identified in the overall strategy. The Town Council believes that approach to be flawed and unbalanced compared to other sites that are available.  Brownfield sites and other land identified as ‘white land’ in the current Local Plan which can be readily allocated for housing purposes.

Also object to the land to the west to Street Lane being allocated, as the site is all within the Green Belt and the extent of urban sprawl towards Belper would be unacceptable.

The Borough Council is urged to provide complete transparency regarding the number of new houses required and how sites are – or are not – allocated.

They are also sceptical about the motivation of the Borough Council in identifying the over-whelming majority of sites being east of the A38 and that the Council should take a more balanced view.

Councillor David Williams

Formally objects to the proposals within the Preferred Growth Strategy for house building in this area.

All of the sites are in the north and east of the borough and there are none in the western half, for example in the Belper, Duffield and rural parishes. An exhausted search to identify specific former industrial brownfield sites should have been made, along with a comprehensive strategy to bring empty properties into use for housing.

No mention is made on the likely need for extra government spending on:

 Health facilities – GP surgeries, hospitals and dentists  Public open space and outdoor sports facilities  Community facilities for all age groups – leisure centres, community centres, cultural centres and libraries  Preserving and enhancing historic buildings, conservation areas and the historic environment.

The housing development at Alfreton Road, Codnor and the by-pass will both be rather near Codnor Castle and it is likely that spending will be required on measures to protect the fabric of the historic site and its surrounds.

We call upon you to:

1. Promote a thoroughgoing review of all actual and potential brownfield sites and moves to bring all empty properties into use as housing. 2. Identify where extra social facilities are needed, itemise the likely increased government expenditure and produce estimates of this likely spending.

5. Summary of comments from Borough Councillors

Councillor Chris Emmas-Williams

Strongly objects to the land to the East of Codnor (AV8 Chesterfield Road) being included as one of the preferred sites for development as the entire site lies within the Green Belt which should be protected against development and does not believe that putting a link road across the land is ‘exceptional circumstances’.

States that the infrastructure in Codnor does not come close to being supportive of an extra 500 houses whether it be the roads, schools and medical services.

Councillor Bob Janes

Has concerns over the Newlands site as it is within the flood plain, has also expressed concerns over the traffic that could be generated by the development. Taylor Lane is currently zoned for commercial/industrial – a smaller development might make sense.

Objects to the Alfreton Road, Codnor site as it has huge traffic issues along with lack of public facilities e.g. schools.

Suggests that Lily Street Farm at Swanwick and Far Laund at Belper to be considered as potential strategic sites, the reason for this is to balance development in different areas of the Borough and spread the load for current services.

Councillor Paul Jones

Concerned that the majority of sites identified for development are on the eastern side of the A38 and will put increasing pressure on the communities of Alfreton, Heanor and Ripley and that unemployment in Amber Valley is significantly higher in these areas.

Comments on AV14 – Land at Newlands, Heanor: The reasons for Not including this area in the in the Council’s documentation are

 Most of the site is in Green Belt  Part of the site lies within Flood Zone 3a  A local wildlife site and an area identified as a Local Wildlife Site are located within the southern part of the site.  Significant areas of the land contain sites of importance to nature conservation  Primary schools would be required  Secondary schools have limited capacity  DCC have stated that the traffic lights at the top of Mansfield Road are at their maximum capacity and therefore issues begin to arise about the impact of the A6008 with this development.

Councillor Alexander Stevenson

Supports the removal of the Hardy Barn (AV15), Heanor site from the Local Development Framework as this land is a valuable asset to the community.

Amber Valley has many former industrial sites that should be developed before we even consider using any Green Belt and there are many houses within the borough that should be brought back into the housing market by compulsory purchase or other means.

6. Summary of comments from key bodies

Environment Agency Are in principle supportive of the Preferred Growth Strategy for Amber Valley. No objections are raised to the preferred sites. However, they have made certain suggestions in terms of Flooding Matters, Water Quality, Sustainable Waste Matters and Biodiversity. They have also suggested that prior to the sites being put forward as allocations, the authority should seek confirmation from Severn Trent Water to ensure that the sewerage system and sewerage treatment works have sufficient capacity to cater for new development without causing deterioration in river water quality. Outseats Farm, Alfreton No flood risk concerns. However, there is a small watercourse that borders the north- west of the site as confirmed in the in flood risk assessment. It is recommend that the indicative site boundary is amended for the site allocation to allow an easement for maintenance and improved biodiversity. A suitable buffer zone needs to be maintained between the proposed development and the Local Wildlife Site. A new park within the site is welcomed, as it will go some way to alleviate pressures on the nearby site of conservation value. Newlands/Taylor Lane, Heanor Newlands: The Bailey Brook borders the northern extent of the site and most of the identified site appears to be concentrated outside of the attributed flood zone. All development proposals should not infringe on the floodplain. A suitable buffer zone should be provided between any new development and the Brook and the Local Wildlife Site. Taylor Lane: Majority of the site lies within Flood Zone 1, but the western edge of the site lies within Flood Zone 3a. Contamination is suspected from sites historically used for open cast mining. The site lies on a secondary aquifer where groundwater is sensitive to pollution. The authority should be satisfied that any risk has been properly assessed and if necessary a viable remediation scheme undertaken.

Nottingham Road. Ripley There are no flood risk concerns regarding this site. However, there is a spring on the site that flows into a field drain on the eastern boundary and this will need to be protected.

Coppice Farm, Ripley The suggested easement from the ordinary watercourse on the south western border of the site has demonstrated that people and property will not be subject to flood risk. There are however known flood risk issues on the Bottle Brook and any development in this location will need to contribute to flood alleviation within the catchment. Alfreton Road, Codnor A watercourse dissects the southern portion of the site flood zone attributed to it. There is currently insufficient information to demonstrate the extent of the Flood Zone from this watercourse, therefore the required easement for new development is unknown and a hydraulic analysis of this watercourse will be required to establish any potential flood risk arising from the watercourse, any mitigation measures and an appropriate layout for more vulnerable uses such as dwellings. There is unconfirmed local information that suggests the watercourse is known to flood. This information should be verified by any historical records of flood events from local newspapers, local residents and community groups. Land North of Denby The presence of contamination presents a risk to the water environment which may adversely restrict the beneficial use of this land. Assessments will be needed as to the appropriateness and effectiveness of any measure that are put forward to remediate the contamination present. The authority should ensure that a viable remediation is achievable prior to the site being confirmed as a preferred allocation. Cinderhill tar pits and the Morrells Brook Local Wildlife Site need to be protected from development and opportunities to enhance the brook should be sought. There are known flood issues on the Bottle Brook and any development in this location should contribute to flood alleviation within the catchment. Radbourne Lane, Mackworth There are no concerns regarding this site.

English Heritage Outseats Farm, Alfreton The development of this site is likely to impact on the setting of the grade II* listed Carnfield Hall and also the Carnfield Hall Conservation Area. In accordance with the NPPF public benefit associated with the scheme should be balanced against this level of harm and there should be clear and convincing justification for this. They would like clarification that further work has been carried out in relation to this issue, now that this site is the subject of a planning application and given the harm identified.

Nottingham Road, Ripley Comments have previously been made that this site may impact on the area in terms of its industrial heritage interest an in relation to Butterley Park. A grade II listed milestone lies adjacent to the site. Alfreton Road, Codnor Concerned with the proposed allocation of this site in relation to the potential impact on the wider setting of Codnor Castle. The significance and setting of a large number of important heritage assets will be affected by the bypass and substantial harm could be caused, notwithstanding the potential benefits to relieving traffic congestion through the area. Coppice Farm, Ripley The setting of the grade II listed Coppice Farm will need to be carefully considered in the allocation of this site for housing. Land North of Denby A detailed response to this was made in the previous consultation in Spring 2012. Please refer to our specific comments made at that time whereby we referred to the potential to enhance the setting of the designated heritage asset adjacent to the site (Grade II* listed Park Hall) and the need for a master planning process. Radbourne Lane, Mackworth Strong objections have previously been made to the allocation of the whole 182 ha site due to impacts of a number of designated heritage assets at Mackworth and to the setting of the grade I Kedleston Hall Registered Park and Garden at Kedleston Hall. The preferred site sits away from these designated heritage assets in order to reduce impact upon the setting.

Other potential strategic sites Strongly support the decision not to take forward Land off Mill Lane and Kilbourne Road, Belper and Markeaton Stones, Mackworth due to the harm these sites would have caused on the heritage assets around them. Natural England Concerns that a Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment has not yet been undertaken and/or consulted on at this stage. A Habitat Regulations Assessment will also be required. The inclusion of ‘Environmental Considerations’ and ‘Green Infrastructure’ in the site selection process is welcomed. The Local Planning Authority should take the following matters into consideration: Biodiversity – welcomes the consideration that has been given to locally, regionally and nationally designated sites and advises that any development proposals should aim to avoid damage to existing biodiversity features, and to create opportunities for enhancing biodiversity through the delivery of Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) targets. Geodiversity – should ensure that appropriate weight is attached to the geodiversity interest of designated sites and also within the wider environment, and maximise opportunities to include geodiversity in and around developments as part of the design process. They have provided some site specific comments where they would a requirement for development to preserve and enhance the open space of the sites, protect and enhance the LWS and to protect the nature conservation of the sites. Preferred Strategic Sites Outseats Farm, Alfreton – welcome the recognition of the presence of the Alfreton Tunnel Cutting North Local Wildlife Site adjacent to this site.

Land at Nottingham Road, Ripley – note that part of the site is designated open space.

Land north of Denby – welcome the recognition of the presence of a nature conservation site within the description of the site.

Land at Newlands/Taylor Lane, Heanor – the site includes part of Bailey Brook Marsh Local Wildlife Site.

Derbyshire County Council All of the sites will require testing in the strategic transportation model currently under development due to the significant impact over the wider highway network. A modelling assessment would be required to determine whether the scale of development in the PGS could be delivered. Outseats Farm, Alfreton Details regarding the access, stating that the narrow frontage on Mansfield Road, (opposite Salcombe Road) provides the opportunity for a primary access creating a cross-road arrangement. Site is beyond the lower travel time threshold (Walk) of a GP surgery, pharmacy, post office and library. The scale of development may, however, support the inclusion of some of these services. Good access to railway station and public transport, although pedestrian links need to be improved. There may be some traffic problems on the B600 (Nottingham Road), south of the A38, and nearby A38 slip roads. The additional traffic generated by a possible development may necessitate capacity upgrades at this junction. Nottingham Road, Ripley

The issue of the Ripley-Woodlinkin Improvement Scheme (RWIS) needs to be clarified before a proper assessment can be given to development of this site and the potential impact of generated traffic on the operation of the A610. Transportation implications would be two fold, firstly, implications arising from behavioural changed i.e. traffic re-routing due to the existence of the scheme – its network effects and; secondly, traffic being generated by the development associated with the scheme. For this reason, early evaluation of the scheme through the use of a dynamic traffic model would be recommended. All essential services are accessible within the upper travel time threshold of the development site. A GP surgery, pharmacy and post office are beyond the lower travel time threshold (walk). However, these services could be provided as part of the development itself. New crossing points across this route will be vital in maximising the potential for sustainable trips and the possibility that the proposed development could support additional public transport services which serve the site directly.

Alfreton Road, Codnor

Access options for this site need to be considered in some detail before the feasibility of development can be properly assessed. Land acquisition may be required to achieve road improvements. The feasibility and viability of delivering part of the RWIS as part of the development would also need to be assessed at an early stage and again the use of dynamic traffic model would be recommended. The site has good level of access with essential services. All can be accessed within the lower travel time threshold (walk) with the exception of a secondary school. There is also the requirement to consider the diversion of existing bus services through the site if a link road is provided. High quality pedestrian and cycle networks should be created. Coppice Farm, Ripley Development in this area would significantly impact on the local highway network. The Transport Assessment submitted with the current planning application proposes the introduction of a traffic signal control to the Steam Mill Lane/A610 junction. The PGS points out that there is potential for a scheme to improve local transport infrastructure and assist with funding a new A610 link road, a view that DCC supports. The site has good access to essential services. The development may significantly impact on Peasehill Road and Waingroves Road junction and Steam Mill Lane with Nottingham Road (A610) junction. Also the junction of Crosshill and Waingroves Road will need to be upgraded if the site is to be developed. Land north of Denby Junction improvements would be required at a number of locations including Rawson Green. The principle of direct access on the Trunk Road Network (A38) was established through a previous planning application covering part of the site. However, much will be dependent on the ability of developers to provide A38 grade separate junction and, if not, little comment can be made in the absence of a fully revised and updated TA supported by testing through a dynamic traffic model. Adjacent roads, Derby Road and Street Lane will be impacted upon the most, particularly the Kilburn Toll Bar junction. The site is poorly located in relation to existing essential services, all of which, (with the exception of a secondary school) are beyond the upper travel time threshold (walk). However given its size, the site would need to include purpose built services such as a new primary school and a local centre that would serve both the future and existing residents of this area to create a sustainable new development.

The mixed land use will provide job opportunities for some residents. However, there are relatively local employment opportunities in Belper, Ripley and Derby. Given the size of the site and the potential travel patterns, it will be essential to create new bus routes to serve the site. Newlands/Taylors Lane, Heanor This site would represent an extension to the existing urban area to the north of Heanor. Additional highway capacity would probably be required in Heanor, although further testing is needed. Clearly any proposals to develop the site should include a network of high quality pedestrian and cycle routes both within the site and into surrounding land-uses and the nearby town centre. Additional public transport services, which connect the site and the town centre, will also be required. The site is located within close proximity to the existing urban area and a wide range of facilities within Heanor. However, the site is located beyond the lower travel time threshold of all essential services which may require some on site services to be provided. It is anticipated that the transport network will need to be upgraded to accommodate development on the site. Waste The relevant HWRC is located in Loscoe, which is currently over capacity. The additional 9,000 dwellings over the plan period will place significant additional pressure on the HWRC. DCC would expect new residential development to contribute towards the provision of household waste recycling centre capacity, in line with Developer Contributions Protocol, either through S106 or CIL. Libraries DCC would expect, in line with the Developer Contribution Protocol, new residential development to contribute towards on-going provision of library services in order to accommodate sustainable growth in Amber Valley. Landscape and Green Infrastructure Comments From a landscape impact and landscape character point of view, DCC has no comments to make on the preferred strategic sites at Outseats Farm, Alfreton, Newlands/Taylor Lane, Heanor, Nottingham Road, Ripley and Land North of Denby.

Alfreton Road, Codnor DCC has identified the area east of Codnor as being of Secondary Sensitivity in terms of Historic and Visual Sensitivity. Impact on the landscape, landscape character and environmental sensitivity, and the need for appropriate mitigation of such impacts, will be an important consideration in assessing the development potential of the site and should be given a high priority in the assessment process. Coppice Farm, Ripley DCC has identified an area including this site as being of Secondary Sensitivity in terms of Historic and Visual Sensitivity. This area is identified as being in the ‘Derbyshire Coalfield National Character Area’, and part of the finer landscape subdivision ‘Coalfield Village Farmlands’ landscape character type where the settlement pattern is characterised by small villages expanded by red brick former mining terraces and ribbon development. Impact on the landscape, landscape character and environmental sensitivity, and the need for appropriate mitigation of such impacts, will be an important consideration in assessing the development potential of the site and should be given a high priority in the assessment process. Highways Agency The Agency broadly supports the Preferred Growth Strategy to deliver growth in Amber Valley and welcomes the Council’s emphasis on maximising the use of brownfield land when possible and making efficient use of existing infrastructure. Preferred Strategic Sites in Alfreton, Ripley, Codnor and Heanor – have the potential to contribute to cumulative impact on the A38 and/or M1 J26, 27 and 28. Whilst this is not considered to be a critical issue, further consideration will need to be given to these potential impacts and how they are expected to be managed in order to inform the Core Strategy. Land North of Denby – the document acknowledges that the Agency has concerns regarding the deliverability of an access to the A38 to serve the site. Such a junction will need to be funded by the developer of the site or through other locally identified funding. If this junction is essential to the delivery of the site, the Core Strategy will need to demonstrate how and when it is expected to be delivered in relation to build out of the site. As part of this evidence it may be necessary to revisit the design and estimated costs of the junction to confirm its feasibility. The agency considers that the transport evidence base underpinning the Core Strategy should now consider the cumulative impact of preferred growth locations on the A38 and M1 with a view to identifying the nature of mitigation that may be required to support the Core Strategy.

The Coal Authority Has no preference for any particular growth strategy, nor does it have comments on preferred or potential strategy sites as these are a matter for local determination. The LPA should however have regard to the preference of surface coal resources and mining legacy features in its choice of site allocation at all stages in the Local Plan process, including for strategic sites. At present there is no indication that the preferred growth strategy had has due regard to these factors as required by the NPPF. Homes and Communities Agency Welcomes the invitation to comment on Amber Valley Borough Council’s Preferred Growth Strategy consultation document. On this occasion, they have no comments to make. Campaign to Protect Rural England – Derbyshire State that the proposal for 9,000 new homes to be provided in Amber Valley from 2008 to 2028 is about right. Development at Outseats Farm would create urban sprawl from Alfreton towards the M1. It would also necessitate building on greenfield land that could otherwise be used for agricultural and/or recreational. Support Newlands/Taylor Lane. Object to the preferred sites at Nottingham Road, Ripley, Alfreton Road, Codnor and Coppice Farm, Ripley – Use of Green Belt land which contravenes the requirements of the NPPF and Amber Valley have not demonstrated that exceptional circumstances apply here. The NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to identify land for housing based on an objective assessment of local housing need including that for affordable housing, an assessment of the capacity of local infrastructure to absorb the additional development and of key environmental constraints such as whether the sites are in green belt, and an evaluation of the extent to which the proposed development is capable of access by non-car transport modes. Amber Valley have turned this process on its head by assuming the desirability of new infrastructure (the Codnor Bypass) and retrofitting the site allocations to generate development served by the new road and the resources to fund it. Retail need has not been demonstrated for the new supermarket at Nottingham Road, Ripley and most importantly an assessment of the impact of the new supermarket on the vitality of Ripley town centre has not to our knowledge been carried out. A thorough and up to date transport assessment for the proposed new road has not been provided.

Evidence of an on-going iterative Sustainability Appraisal of emerging options including thorough public consultation at every stage appears to be absent. Coppice Farm is also close to brownfield land which could be used as an alternative to this site. The site should remain as working agricultural land. Supports Land North of Denby – Suggest serious consideration is given to allocating a larger number of houses there. If the Greenbelt boundary is to be altered anywhere in the Borough, this would be the most sustainable area to do so.

Woodland Trust Believes that no development should be allowed which destroys or has an adverse impact on ancient woodland as this is an irreplaceable habitat. Appropriate buffering strips, preferably new woodland should be included where development happens near to ancient woodland. Have not had an opportunity to examine any of the proposed development sites in detail but we note from the consultation document that the following ones either include or are adjacent to significant areas of woodland: Land at Outseats Farm, Alfreton Land at Heage Road, Ripley Land at Newlands, Heanor Land at Hermitage Farm, Riddings

Would like to see new woodland and tree planting included in areas of new development wherever possible, as part of a well-planned and well-connected network of green infrastructure.

National Trust Does not object to this quantum of new houses but is concerned to ensure that the wider benefit of new residential development area achieved.

The preferred locations for housing growth – Agrees and supports the choice of strategic sites as set out towards the foot of page 8 of the consultation document. It is noted that the allocation of the remaining 500 houses needed to meet the proposed overall level of provision is to be left until the preparation of a Site Allocations DPD – does not object to this stance, but it will be important to demonstrate that suitable sites are, in principle, available and will not result in a small number of additional major allocation(s) or development in unsuitable locations.

In the main they do not wish to comment upon the preferred strategic sites. However, the following specific matters are noted:

Radbourne Lane (the preferred site) – The Trust have been content with development of this site provided that it is in accordance with the SPD that has been prepared.

Other potential strategic sites:

Markeaton Stones – Agree that in principle this is not a suitable site for consideration for development. It would have adverse impacts resulting from the truncation of the Mackworth/Allestree Green Wedge. Infrastructure constraints around transport and school provision are also notable and confirm the unsuitability of this location. More particularly, development of this site would have a significant and substantial adverse impact upon heritage and landscape resources i.e. setting of Kedleston Hall Historic Park and Garden.

Radbourne Lane (not preferred site) – Significant infrastructure constraints relating to education provision in the area and to transport considerations. The scale of the development that potentially would be undertaken on this site would again be very substantial indeed. In particular would result in a complete change in the character and appearance of the landscape and in the main this would occur within the identified wider setting of Kedleston Hall Historic Park and Garden.

Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service

It is vitally important that new housing is well-designed and addresses safety and the needs of vulnerable people. Houses must provide adequate safety for the occupant throughout the occupiers’ lifetimes. Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service should be consulted on all pre-application discussions and planning applications so that the implications for fire safety can be considered.

Sprinkler systems are exceptionally effective through their ability to control a fire before it develops to life threatening proportions. New residential development should incorporate domestic sprinkler systems and 32mm mains water risers (associated water supply infrastructure). The cost of installing a 32mm mains water riser is approximately £26 per dwelling. The cost of installing a domestic sprinkler system is approximately £1500 although this varies depending on the type of dwelling and distance from the property to the water mains. The cost of installing sprinkler systems and associated water infrastructure should be seen in the context of alternative approaches including the ‘do nothing’ approach and the installation of fire protection measures, both of which have significant cost implications.

The cost of installing fire protection measures in order to meet Building Regulation requirements is around £1200 per dwelling for fire doors plus additional costs for compartment walls and ceilings. Installation of a domestic sprinkler system provides additional flexibility to developers in meeting Building Regulation requirements at a lower cost to traditional fire protection measures. In addition, where change of use is anticipated, domestic sprinkler systems are often the only practical way to meet means of escape requirements.

The ‘do nothing’ approach and consequential economic cost of a fire must also be considered. The Association of British Insurers (ABI 2009) stated the cost of fire damage to homes was £408 million, which equated to an average cost of £8000 per property. The Department for Communities and Local Government report published in March 2011 ‘The economic cost of fire: estimates for 2008 fire research report’ has put the full cost of a fire in a domestic property at £44,523. Costs arise not only from fire damage but also as a result of a requirement for alternative accommodation and, in the case of rented accommodation, lost income.

The cost of doing nothing is therefore well in excess of installing sprinkler systems as part of new developments or retrofitting existing properties. To give a real-life example, a fire in a single flat which did not have a sprinkler system in Glasgow in 2009 resulted in an overall cost in excess of £2 million as a result of repair costs and the need to provide alternative accommodation for tenants. In comparison, the cost of retrofitting Callow Mount in Sheffield was £55,124 or just £1148 per flat.

Where necessary, local authorities should therefore consider the use of conditions and information notes/recommendations on planning permissions to secure the provision of sprinkler systems and associated water supply infrastructure. The local planning authority could adapt and use the following example wording as a condition on a planning permission to ensure a development is appropriately designed to provide adequate safety.

“The use or occupation of the development authorised by this permission shall not begin until the sprinkler system and associated water infrastructure shown on the drawings hereby approved and described in xxdocumentxx dated xxdaymonthyearxx have been installed in accordance with those drawings and certified in writing as complete by or on behalf of the local planning authority.”

Bolsover District Council Cross boundary issues with Amber Valley;

 A strategic gap between South Normanton and Alfreton should be maintained  There is a need to join up green infrastructure beyond the district boundary  The need to protect wildlife sites and historic buildings close to the shared boundary  Consequences that new development will have on the A38 and the M1 junction.

The PGS does not include any mention of the opportunity for Outseats Farm site to link into greenway connections that will form part of Bolsover District Council’s strategic network of cycle routes as envisaged by DCC, where part of a strategic greenway link between South Normanton and Westhouses is proposed to go through the Outseats Farm site.

The site could provide a greenway within its general layout that connects into Bolsover District at its southern end that could also address any potential barrier presented by the rail line. If such matters are not clearly stated in the next iteration of the Amber Valley Local plan then opportunities could be missed to include the route within the scheme and to fund the implementation of this part of the proposed cycle network by non-public means.

There is a need for a strategic open break to prevent coalescence of settlements and that the PGS makes no reference to the need to help maintain a strategic gap between Alfreton and South Normanton. This open break could also be used to encourage green infrastructure in the area.

A site allocation at Outseats Farm should include green space/ green infrastructure along the site boundary with the A38 and the East Midland Mainline. This would contribute to an open break that would benefit the setting of both towns and districts.

At present it is unclear how the impact of the proposed growth in Amber Valley will affect capacity on the strategic highway network.

Development of the Outseats Farm site could impact the setting of Carnfield Hall (grade II* listed building) and/or the Carnfield Hall Conservation Area.

Erewash Borough Council Pleased that the preferred housing sites proposed will not adversely impact on the purpose and function of designated Green Belt between the two council areas.

Re-iterate our stance regarding any potential development scheme at Shipley Lakeside (former American adventure site) which depending on its nature and scale could undermine the Green Belts role of maintaining the continued openness of land between Heanor and Ilkeston.

Support the continued commitment made in Amber Valley to promoting brownfield land development in line with general sustainability objectives. However, it is recognised that an assessment of the suitability of using greenfield land to meet objectively assessed housing needs to 2028 may be required as a consequence of decreasing development opportunities coupled with the uncertain economic outlook and how this would affect the construction sector insofar as the viability of development sites.

North East Derbyshire District Council

We are unaware of any specific attempts at proactive liaison or co-operation between AVBC and NEDDC and I would suggest that this is addressed prior to the publication of either Council’s Core Strategy. The proximity of Alfreton to the Borough/District boundary and the shared A61 corridor are issues requiring further discussion between our authorities.

It is not proposed to comment on the detail of the locally derived housing target as that is considered to be a matter for AVBC and the wider Derby HMA. The overall growth strategy approach focuses development in areas close to existing service centres and Derby is the closest main urban area. It is not expected that the strategy will put undue pressure on the A61 northwards through NEDDC towards Chesterfield, although there has been no discussion of such potential implications between our two Councils.

The strategic site AV2 appears to offer the most sensible alternative for growth around Alfreton. It is well located in relation to the town centre and road and rail infrastructure and would appear to consolidate the town centre. Site AV1 is less appropriate in locational terms and suffers from numerous constraints and should not be supported.

In summary from the information provided within the consultation document it is considered that there will be no material impact upon North East Derbyshire and that no objections be raised. AVBC is however requested to take account of the officer comments set out above, and particularly those in relation to the need for both our Council’s to liaise more closely in fulfilment of our obligations under the Duty to Co- operate.

Nottingham City Council Response is made on behalf of Broxtowe Borough Council, Erewash Borough Council, Gedling Borough Council, Nottingham City Council and Rushcliffe Borough Council, who collectively make up the Nottingham Core Housing Market Area.

Noted that the PGS’s collectively include the provision of 33,700 homes between 2008 and 2028. This is slightly less than the 36,300 proposed in the Regional Strategy (East Midlands Regional Plan 2009)over the same period.

Noted that the Derby HMA have commissioned a Housing Requirements Study (GL Hearn 2012) which identifies objectively assessed housing needs for the Derby Housing Market Area, and that the PGS’s seeks to meet this identified need.

States that if implemented will not lead to additional demand for housing in neighbouring Housing Market Areas including the Nottingham Core Housing Market Area.

7. Summary of comments from site promoters on scale of housing growth

Pegasus Group – On behalf of Miller Homes, Barratt Developments, Persimmon Homes, Redrow Homes Midland, Bloor Homes, William Davis Homes, Clowes Developments and Hallam Land Management. The figure of 9,000 new homes in Amber Valley identified in the Housing Requirements Study 2012 prepared by GL Hearn is too low to meet the housing needs of the Borough, given that this figure is derived from the overall Derby HMA figure of 33,700. The overall figure of 33,700 new homes identified for the Derby HMA will not meet the full, objectively assessed need for market and affordable housing as required by paragraph 47 of the NPPF and will not meet the test for plans to be positively prepared as set out in paragraph 182. The methodology used and housing requirements specified in this Study are flawed and do not provide a sound basis for forecasting future housing needs across the area. A growth strategy based on this study will not make full provision of housing needs across the Derby HMA or meet requirements for providing sustainable development. This would be in conflict with the main thrust of the NPPF, in particular with paragraph 14 and the Core Planning Principles outlined in paragraph 17. Limiting the provision of new housing to 33,700 new homes across the Derby HMA will also fail to deliver the vision of the Amber Valley Preferred Growth Strategy to create sustainable communities. In these respects, any future Core Strategy based on providing 33,700 new homes will not meet the soundness tests described at paragraph 182 of the NPPF as it will not have been positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy and, in our view, will be considered unsound. The information we have provided shows the remaining requirement for the total Derby HMA, based on the East Midlands RS is 35,765 dwellings 2008 to 2028 which would equal a provision of 1,788 dwellings per annum. This, however, is based on the old projections and is now not a sound figure that should be utilised in projecting future housing requirements to 2028. Utilising the 2008 based household projections, which are currently the best household projections available, and taking account of unmet need, vacancies and second homes, it is clear that there is evidence for at least some 54,482 dwellings 2008 to 2028 to be provided in the Derby HMA. This is the full requirement figure that relates to the requirements set out in the NPPF.

The GL Hearn report suggests that the base household projection for the years 2008 to 2028 produces a dwelling requirement for the Derby HMA of 33,659 dwellings over the plan period. This is some 20,000 dwellings below the figure that evolves from the CLG 2008 based household projections and is evidently a substantial move away from the figures that projected by CLG. Such manipulations are not in accordance with the NPPF which requires full provision to be made for future housing requirements. It also does not accord with the NPPF requirement to ensure that authorities provide for sustainable development. Lack of provision here would mean increased requirements to be made elsewhere and there are no agreements with surrounding authorities to take the houses that are not provided in the Derby HMA.

The figure utilised by GL Hearn is an incorrect figure for a number of reasons, but as shown above principally they manipulate the 2008 projections by reducing migration figures into the HMA and also by utilising wrong headship rates. This figure therefore is not a sound base upon which to forecast future housing requirements.

Marrons The provision of 9,000 new homes in Amber Valley over the years 2008-2028 is about 12% lower than the scale of housing provision set out in the RSS for the East Midlands. For Amber Valley the HRS forecasts growth in the order of 7,800 households 2008-28. This is substantially lower than the 11,000 households set out in 2008 based household projections released by DCLG in 2010. This figure was only one of the four Options for Growth on which the Council consulted in 2011. The PGS directs 28% of the proposed level new housing across the HMA to Amber Valley. On that basis our clients consider that under a strategy for the provision of 47,900 homes across the HMA with 13,400 being directed to Amber Valley (47,900 x 28% = 13,400). In this way the plan will incorporate a significant boost to the supply of housing consistent with the aim of Paragraph 47 of the NPPF. Barton Willmore – on behalf of Taylor Wimpey The Preferred Growth Strategy identifies that the Derby HMA authorities have agreed a minimum of 33,700 dwellings to be provided within the Derby HMA, of which 9,000 dwellings would be provided within Amber Valley. This is based on the Options for Growth Document (February 2012) which omitted a number of scenarios set out within the DHMAPHP Explanatory Note. Whilst some of these omissions are understandable (notably the employment led and natural change scenarios), it is not clear why the Councils omitted the migration led scenario which by the Explanatory Note's own admission represented a more stable basis for projections.

The NPPF confirms that in determining local housing provision, Local Planning Authorities should base evidence upon Central Government's latest published household projections and have regard to economic growth forecasts.

The published East Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (2009) was informed by 2004- based CLG projections, which are now somewhat dated. However, it is also clear that both the RSS housing target and 2004-based CLG projections were very similar. The 2004-based CLG projections derived household growth within the Derby HMA equating to 1,950 households per annum between 2006 - 2026. This compares with the RSS housing target of 1,830 dpa.

The latest 2008-based CLG projections derive household growth within the Derby HMA totalling 2,395 households per annum (2008-2028). The CLG projections are trend based reflecting past rates of migration within the Derby HMA, and as such we consider the reference to this option within the Options for Growth Document as 'higher migration' is misleading. In fact we consider this option to represent the most realistic of all the scenarios that were previously consulted upon in February 2012. Indeed, the level of household growth resulting from the latest CLG projections is considered prudent.

Capita Symonds

It is considered that the number of houses proposed by the PGS within Amber Valley is insufficient and should be increased to reflect the Office for National Statistics (ONS) 2008 based household projections.

The NPPF sets the benchmark for the approach to reaching appropriate housing targets for Local Plans. It requires Local Planning Authorities to significantly boost the supply of housing and to do so they should use their evidence base to ensure the Plan meets objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in full. In order to assess full housing needs the NPPF advises that this will involve:

 addressing the need for all types of housing including affordable housing and the needs of different groups in the community,  meeting household and population projections, taking account of migration and demographic change, and  catering for housing demand and the scale of housing to meet this demand.

The latest version of Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) for the Derby HMA was published in 2008. The SHMA provides information on unmet need in the area and highlights the issue that growth in projected households has over the last decade consistently exceeded housing supply. The SHMA identified that the net housing need in Amber Valley amounted to 1278 households, or an overall annual shortfall of 567 households per annum .

The latest household and population projections are the 2008 based projections, produced by the Communities and Local Government Office and for National Statistics (ONS) respectively. Planning appeal cases since the publication of the NPPF have confirmed that the 2008 household projections represent the most reliable up to date figures, and therefore the best evidence on which to base the assessment of the housing supply position.

For Amber Valley the 2008 household projections up to 2028 amount to 11,247 households. Taking into consideration the unmet need from the SHMA and other factors such as second homes and vacancy rates the full requirement for Amber Valley between 2008-2028 equates to approximately 16,100 dwellings.

The justification for the housing numbers in the PGS has been taken from the 2012 Derby HMA Housing Requirements Study (HRS). The study concludes that the Government's 2010 based population projections assume higher rates of net in- migration than is likely to be the case and overstate the projected decline in average household size. While the HRS reflects the view that there is a higher level of in migrants than out migrants it does not follow the figures set out in the national projection, preferring to base it on its own historical date and rebasing the figures. In respect of internal in migration this appears to understate the level of in migration by around 200 people per annum as opposed to the figure from the 2010 SNPP which is the figure that should be used.

On the basis of the above evidence it is considered that the HRS predictions for a reduction in net international migration into Amber Valley does not follow the trends shown in the data. In our opinion, there appears to be strong evidence to suggest that this figure will be closer to the Government predictions than those put forward in the HRS. In the light of recent trends and the need for regeneration and economic growth it is considered that the HRS predictions and PGS recommended housing figures would fail to meet the growth needs of Amber Valley.

While the prospect of delivering the housing requires by the Government projections appears daunting, the recent low levels of housing delivery rates do not necessarily represent a long term trend and as the economy emerges from the recession there exists a potential for housing building rates to meet needs. We are very much of the view that emerging plans should be aspirational and should follow the NPPF objective of significantly boosting the supply of housing. While the economic recovery has been slow, 2028 is a long way off. Plan making needs to accommodate rather than limit potential. False limitations on meeting needs will exacerbate issues of affordability.

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners on Behalf of Commercial Estates Group The proposal for 9,000 new homes equates to an annual requirement of 450 dwellings per year over the period 2008 to 2028. The report previously submitted by Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners (NLP) on behalf of Commercial Estates Group (CEG), entitled “Response to Options for Housing Growth Consultation (July 2011): Representations to Amber Valley Borough Council on behalf of Commercial Estates Group” (30 September 2011), provides an objective assessment of housing need and outlines why the housing requirement should be higher than 450 dwellings per year. We have not reproduced that report here but note that it concludes:

1 With reference to the options presented in the “Options for Housing Growth Consultation”, only Scenario 4 which establishes a requirement for 584 dwellings per annum in Amber Valley to meet the projections set out by Government in the Sub- National Population Projections, would accord with the national policy to meet identified housing needs. This level of housing would meet an objective assessment of the likely pressures for housing arising from future demographic change and is also the only scenario which would support the existing job base in Amber Valley, given the significant effect of the ageing population.

2 Amber Valley should be planning for no less than 537 dwellings per annum over the Local Plan period, a level necessary for maintaining a labour force which can support the current job base in the Borough without adverse economic impacts. 537 dwellings per annum would also accommodate housing pressures in Amber Valley arising from the projected demographic changes, based upon past trends in both natural change and migration, ensuring that sufficient housing is provided to meet objectively assessed estimates of housing need and demand.

3 Given constraints around land supply in Derby City, and the scale of population and household growth across the Derby Housing Market Area (HMA), it is clear that any growth in the number of households in Derby not accommodated within the Derby authority area, will need to be provided in the rest of the HMA area (i.e. Amber Valley and South Derbyshire) to support Derby’s growth as well as their own needs. Assuming a capacity of 10,000 dwellings in Derby City and an even split of the residual between Amber Valley and South Derbyshire, the need and demand for homes to be accommodated within Amber Valley could be as high as 860 to 930 dwellings per annum, based upon projected demographic changes (from past trends in migration).

Signet Planning – On behalf of Peveril Homes The proposed housing target falls well below the Regional Spatial Strategy housing target. Those housing targets were based on 2004 projections whilst the most available figures relate to 2010. The 2010 projections show a substantial increase in the requirement for housing within the HMA yet the Preferred Growth Strategy proposes a significantly smaller housing target. If pursued the Plan will be unsound. The proposed minimum housing target for Amber Valley Borough Council is set at 9,000 with 74% of this target expected to be delivered on sites in the Derby Urban Area (DUA). As demonstrated in its own Annual Monitoring Report and recent appeal decisions, the local authority has a poor record of housing delivery in the past due to policy constraints. In conclusion, it is considered that the adjustments to the household formation (headship) and migration assumptions are not supported. The SNPPs are based on an improved migration count methodology and ONS sources of data are not influenced by resistance to housing development at the local level. In addition, the Core Strategy has a major part to play in developing the economic power of the HMA and the adjusted SNPP-based approach does not factor in the need to promote economic development as outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework. Therefore the 2010-based assumptions should be adjusted to create a higher housing growth target that is clearly needed to overcome historic shortfalls in housing provision and improve the economic performance of the Derby HMA.

8. Summary of comments from site promoters on the preferred growth sites

AV2 Outseats Farm, Alfreton

Barton Willmore

We object to this location for a suitable location for housing growth.

This site is included and has been assessed as part of the Derby HMA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2008. The SHLAA concludes:

"Although when submitted it was suggested that 560 dwellings would be built in years 6- 10, the site has been assessed as 'potentially suitable' and has therefore been allocated for possible future development in years 16+"

Given that the Derby HMA, through its SHLAA, consider that this site is only considered as 'potentially suitable' in 16 plus years (i.e. post plan period) suggests that there are currently constraints to this site that make the site undeliverable and undevelopable.

Paragraph 47 of the NPPF clearly sets out the objectives to boost the supply of housing. The NPPF states that local planning authorities should identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15. To be considered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for housing development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available and could be Viably developed at the point envisaged.

We do not consider that Outseats Farm is deliverable as the site lies within the Heath and Safety Executives Consultation Zone for Hazardous Substances, is adjacent to a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation and the road access onto Mansfield Road is deemed problematic, all points highlighted in the 2008 SHLAA.

We consider land to the east of Chesterfield Road, Alfreton as a more suitable site to accommodate the modest growth in Alfreton.

Leith Planning

We do not consider that 500 dwellings, which we understand equates to approximately 12% of the total housing provision required over the life of the plan, can be deemed to be modest. We consider 500 dwellings to be a significant increase in development in Alfreton and have serious concerns regarding the capacity of the highway network and local services to accommodate such a scale of growth in the local area, particularly when the development potential of smaller sites has yet to be assessed. The Council would appear to share these concerns within the above assessment of the site but have failed to outline how these issues may be overcome.

In addition to the above matter, the development is likely to have detrimental impacts on the ability of EPC to operate a viable business from Rough Close Works, Carnfield Hill. It may also have possible 'knock-on' impacts on the various sites and businesses throughout the United Kingdom who are reliant on the services provided by EPC from this site. Whilst my client does not wish to prevent much needed new development within Amber Valley, nor to preclude development in and around Alfreton to meet projected housing needs, they do need to ensure that they are protecting their existing business, which is of national importance, from encroachment of new housing development. In particular, they wish to protect their operation from new development which may impact upon their ability to expand their operations into future niche markets and thus potentially undermine the viability of their business. In this regard, we would strongly object to any proposed allocation or urban extension within the safety/consultation zones associated with Rough Close Works. Furthermore, we would ask that in the formulation of housing strategies in the Site Allocations for smaller sites that the Council pay due regard to the operations at Rough Close Works and the importance of protecting/supporting an existing business operation and local employer, and seek to ensure that no development is proposed in and around the EPC site.

It is noted that the consultation zones associated with Rough Close Works have not been identified on the Plan supporting the current consultation nor has the operation at Rough Close featured within the site assessment, unlike the adjacent listed building and protected trees. Given the potential conflicts of siting 500 new dwellings within close proximity of my clients' site for the reasons outlined above, it is somewhat surprising that this matter has not been detailed within the report. Without an appropriate assessment on community safety and the impact of the development on a nationally significant business, we consider that the Proposed Growth Strategy as proposed is fundamentally flawed.

Given the matters raised within this submission we strongly object to the proposed urban extension at Alfreton. In particular, it is of considerable concern that the implications of such large scale development within the consultation zones associated with Rough Close Works have been not been given sufficient weight, if any consideration at all.

You will be aware that the Government ordered a review of the way planning applications for development around potentially hazardous sites are handled some time ago. The Department for Communities and Local Government's review forms part of the government's response to recommendations made by the Major Incident Investigation Board following the fire at the Buncefield fuel depot in Hertfordshire in 2005. This Board advised that stricter land-use planning controls should be introduced around major hazard sites to prevent populations growing where there may be potential risks. The findings of this report may well fetter development within the vicinity of sites which store, use and/or transport hazardous substances in the same way as flood zones restrict suitable locations for new development.

The Government is starting to place greater consideration on planning issues around hazardous sites. This is further supported through the provisions of the recently published National Planning Policy Frameworks which states:

"172. Planning policies should be based on up-to-date information on the location of major hazards and on the mitigation of the consequences of major accidents."

Part of the Council's requirements in the preparation of the Local Development Framework relate to the provision of a sound and robust evidence base. This is supported in legislation at Section 13 of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004 which deals with a "survey of the area" and the Council's duty to survey.

The Council has failed to consider the impact of the proposed development on EPC's operations as well as any implications of existing adjacent land uses on the proposed urban extension. We would therefore request that a detailed statement be prepared, in accordance with paragraph 172 of the National Planning Policy Framework to demonstrate how the proposed urban extension has taken account of matters of health and safety and the suitability of this site for the use and development proposed. Without such an assessment being prepared as part of the supporting Evidence Base the Proposed Growth Strategy is deemed to be fundamentally flawed. Just as a diligent approach to flood risk is required by government policy, the National Planning Policy Framework requires a diligent approach to managing risk around hazardous installations; to do otherwise would be at best ill advised. We therefore remain concerned about the scope and content of the evidence base and the soundness of the document.

We trust that the evolving planning policy documents will not be progressed/submitted until the evidence base has been completed in its entirety.

Savills

Part of preferred site AV2 is within a Hazardous Substances Zone. Policy EN19 of the Local Plan clearly states that development in the vicinity of a site involving the storage, use or transport of hazardous substances will not be permitted if there would be increased risk or consequences of major accident.

No evidence has been made available within the PGS that the Major Accident Hazard subject to the Heath and Safety Executive control has been removed. If it has not then any development which would increase the number of people within the risk contours of the Hazardous Substances Zone is discouraged, and requires consultation with the HSE. Even if development would be in an outer zone and HSE consultation may result in a ‘Don’t advise against’ then it is still necessary to weigh up the risks to human health and safety. Where there are alternative sites available that do not have the same risk to health and safely these should be preferred.

The PGS notes that development of preferred site AV2 Outseats Farm could impact on the setting of Grade II* listed Carnfield Hall and the Carnfield Hall Conservation Area. There are also TPO-protected trees on site.

AV8 Alfreton Road, Codnor

Barton Willmore

We object to this location for a suitable location for housing growth.

We do not consider that the Alfreton Road, Codnor is deliverable as all of the site lies within the Green Belt. The NPPF places great importance on protecting the Green Belt. Paragraph 84 of NPPF emphasis that sustainable development should be directed towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary. Allocating a site that is entirely in the Green Belt, when there are other less contained sites outside of the Green Belt is unsustainable and does not confirm to the growth objectives set out in the NPPF.

Savills

Preferred site AV8 is in the Green Belt and demonstrates that non-Green Belt options have not been adequately considered. Opportunities to reduce the land take from Green Belt should be fully considered and land released from the Green Belt only if the housing need cannot be accommodated on suitable non-Green Belt sites.

The NPPF is clear on the matter of development on Green Belt land: Paragraph 79 says, ‘the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts’ while paragraph 83 says ‘Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances’. If a review of Green Belt is warranted the NPPF is clear that the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account.

The impact of development on sensitive natural and built environment is a primary consideration and preferred site AV8 is adjacent to two listed buildings.

AV13 Land North of Denby

Barton Willmore

We object to this location for a suitable location for a new settlement.

The Council have clearly indicated in their explanation for exploring the potential for a new settlement that further technical work will need to be carried out to establish whether development of the form and scale necessary to meet the requirements of a 'new settlement' in this location can be delivered. It is therefore apparent that no evidence base work has been conducted on this site, as such the site should not even be considered until such work has been completed. To consider a new settlement purely based on a limited 'Development Opportunities' and 'Development Constraints' plan is considered to be unsound.

The consideration of Denby as a new settlement is believed to be unsound in the context of the NPPF, because it does not present the most robust solution to deal with changing circumstances and is not founded on a credible evidence base, as evident by the confirmation by the Council that further technical work will need to be undertaken.

This option is considered to offer limited housing development opportunities for the remainder of Amber Valley and does not take into consideration the deficiencies and needs of the other settlements in Amber Valley.

Existing communities would be affected as whilst there is to a degree an acceptance that planning gain could be maximised in just one location, it is felt that such a development proposal would have significant requirements of its own e.g. new school, community facilities and as such, any financial contributions secured would not stretch very far as such facilities are highly expensive. Furthermore any contributions secured would be limited to the immediate locality and would not provide any benefits for the wider area of Amber Valley.

Savills

The Land North of Denby site is three miles from both Belper and Ripley, five miles from Heanor and seven miles from Alfreton. Denby itself is a small village with no retail facilities within walking distance from the proposed development site.

In terms of relationships between existing patterns of development, the preferred site at Land North of Denby is especially weak.

The preferred allocation Land north of Denby site has no relationship to the existing urban area and is six miles from Langley Mill train station making development on this site more reliant on private car travel than public transport and creating a need to travel. The ability of development at this site to limit the use of the car is severely restricted.

AV14 Newlands/Taylor Lane, Heanor

Savills

The impact of development on sensitive natural and built environment is also a primary consideration and preferred site AV14 (Newlands / Taylor Lane, Heanor) abuts areas of nature conservation.

AV17 Radbourne Lane, Mackworth

Savills

The site is 4 miles from Derby Railway Station, but 9 miles to Belper; 12 miles from Heanor and 13 miles from Ripley.

In terms of relationships between existing patterns of development, the preferred site at Radbourne Lane, Mackworth is especially weak.

The impact of development on sensitive natural and built environment is a primary consideration. The site is adjacent to the defined setting of Kedleston Hall Historic Park and Garden and TPO-protected trees are on the site.

AV9 Coppice Farm, Ripley

Savills

It is also questionable whether the preferred status of Coppice Farm, Ripley (AV9) is justified as comprehensive development of this site will effectively amalgamate the areas of Peasehill and Waingroves.

The ability of development at this site to limit the use of the car is severely restricted and by requiring a new link road it is likely that if development at Coppice Farm is delivered with a new link road, it will encourage use of the private car.

AV7 Nottingham Road, Ripley

Barton Willmore

We object to this location for a suitable location for housing growth.

This southern half of this site been assessed as part of the Derby HMA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2008 (SHLAA). The SHLAA concludes: "Although when submitted the proposed development was suggested for the first 5 years, the site has been assessed as 'potentially suitable' and has therefore been allocated for possible future development in years 16+".

We do not consider that all of the Nottingham Road, Ripley site is deliverable as the northern part of the site lies within the Green Belt. The NPPF places great importance on protecting the Green Belt.

Paragraph 84 of NPPF emphasis that sustainable development should be directed towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary.

Savills

Preferred site AV7 is in the Green Belt and demonstrates that non-Green Belt options have not been adequately considered. Opportunities to reduce the land take from Green Belt should be fully considered and land released from the Green Belt only if the housing need cannot be accommodated on suitable non-Green Belt sites.

9. Summary of comments on other potential strategic sites

National Trust Markeaton Stones, Mackworth. Agree that this is not a suitable site for development.

 Adverse impacts on resulting from the truncation of Mackworth/Allestree Green Wedge  Infrastructure constraints around transport and schools provision.  Significant and substantial adverse impact upon heritage and landscape recourses i.e. setting of Kedleston Hall Historic Park and Garden

Radbourne Lane, Mackworth. Agree that this is not a suitable site for development

 Significant infrastructure constraints relating to education provisions and transport considerations  Complete change in the character and appearance of the landscape and in the main would occur within the wider setting of Kedleston Hall Historic Park and Garden

English Heritage Strongly supports the decision not to take forward the following sites:  Land of Mill Lane and Kilbourne Road, Belper  Markeaton Stones, Mackworth  Radbourne Lane, Mackworth (as a whole strategic site allocation)

This is due to the harm these sites would have caused to the heritage assets around them.

Natural England

Land at Derby Road, Swanwick – welcome the reference to Butterley Reservoir Local Wildlife Site. The conclusion of the site assessment should mention this designation and a clear requirement for any development on this site to protect and enhance the Local Wildlife Site.

Land at Hermitage Farm, Riddings – records show a corridor of deciduous woodland within the site boundary, Broadleaved woodland is a priority habitat as per Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Welcome recognition of this within the site assessment, perhaps within the GI section and a clear requirement to protect and enhance this woodland.

Land between Heage Road and Marehay, Ripley and Land at Far Laund, Belper- Part of the each site has designated open space.

Land at Markeaton Stones, Mackworth and Land at Radbourne Lane, Mackworth – Pleased that the site descriptions for these sites note the presence of a Markeaton Park Local Wildlife Site.

Local Residents

Approximately 300 letters supporting the decision to not prefer the site at Hardy Barn, Heanor as it involves the development of land within the Green Belt which prevents the coalescence of Heanor and Ilkeston.

Pegasus Group – Response on behalf of Clowes Developments

Land to the north of Birchwood Lane in Somercotes should be identified as a preferred strategic site.

The site is allocated for employment purposed under saved policy ER3 of the Amber Valley Borough Local Plan 2006. The Amber Valley Annual Monitoring report December 2011 quotes from the Derby HMA Employment Lane Review to the effect that there is an oversupply of employment land available in Amber Valley and that a significant proportion of this is poor quality.

It is therefore considered that the site is not needed for employment purposes and, given the need for additional housing in the Derby HMA, this site should therefore be considered suitable for residential purposes.

Savills Supports the allocation of part of site AV3 - Land South of Birchwood Lane, Somercotes as a non strategic site for approximately 250 dwellings.

Background

For the purposes of the Preferred Growth Strategy, the Nether Farm land has been combined with land to the north of Birchwood Lane. This land, currently allocated for business and industrial development in the Local Plan, has extant planning permission for 26,000 sqm of employment space. The combined capacity of the Nether Farm and site AV3 is identified in the Preferred Growth Strategy for circa 680 dwellings.

These representations to the Preferred Growth Strategy are set out as follows:

1) Section 1 responds to the identified potential restrictions against development on the Nether Farm site.

2) Section 2 compares the Nether Farm site with sites identified in the Preferred Growth Strategy as ‘Preferred Development Sites’.

3) Section 3 queries some of the methodologies used by Amber Valley in the Preferred Growth Strategy, in particular the decision to allocate only strategic sites at this point.

1) Site Restrictions

The SHLAA proforma for Nether Farm stated that there were no known constraints to development of this site. The only identified constraint was uncertainty over ownership and the potential for multiple ownership. The Nether Farm site identified in the SHLAA and PGS is wholly owned by Mr Swain. The land is let on an annual farm business tenancy for grazing, which is terminable at short notice. The site is available and deliverable for development.

The Preferred Growth Strategy updates and supersedes the SHLAA information in identifying two potential constraints on developing Nether Farm (and land to the north of Birchwood Lane) for residential purposes, being accessibility to services and access / highways capacity. These two issues are dealt with in turn below.

Accessibility to Services

The PGS alleges that site AV3 is “poorly related to services in Alfreton”.

Although Alfreton is one of the main market towns and therefore has a relatively wide range of shops and services, Somercotes has its own services and residents of Somercotes are not dependent upon Alfreton to meet all their service needs. The Nether Farm site is only 0.9 miles, or a twenty minute walk along the residentially built up Birchwood Lane, from the centre of Somercotes. Birchwood Lane is an existing bus route with stops outside the Nether Farm site, with services to and from Somercotes centre. Somercotes has numerous shops, pubs, food outlets, an infant school, and significant employment opportunities at the Cotes Park Industrial Estate which is also a short walk from the Nether Farm site.

Somercotes is connected to Alfreton by continuous development along the B600 though the Cotes Park Industrial Estate. Nether Farm is approximately two miles from Alfreton centre, which can be reached from Birchwood Lane in two directions: via the B600 south of Alfreton or via the B6019 west of Alfreton. There are bus services operating to and from Alfreton which stop at Birchwood Lane. Nether Farm is also just 2.5 miles from Alfreton Train station.

The Nether Farm site therefore has convenient and sustainable access by walking, cycling and public transport to services and employment in both Somercotes and Alfreton, and is well located to afford access to a wide range of services locally and nationally via sustainable public transport.

Access and Highways Capacity

The PGS considers the questions over highway access to be “more significant”. The PGS states that Birchwood Lane and Cockshutt Lane have limited capacity for additional traffic and alternative means of accessing the site would, “be very expensive and would need to involve third party land”.

An initial Transport Technical Note has been prepared by Mode Transport Planning to assess the highway capacity implications of new residential development on the Nether Farm land independently, and in conjunction with the Clowes land either as the extant employment permission, or as residential development. Access options have been assessed for the Nether Farm site and there are two locations where access to the site can be achieved.

A) Access Options

The existing access into the site from Birchwood Lane could be used as a priority junction. The Nether Farm land benefits from retained rights over the former farmhouse fronting Birchwood Lane, such that alteration required to achieve necessary visibility splays can be made.

Taking account of the capacity of Nether Farm for approximately 250 units, a second point of access is likely to be required. At the north eastern corner of the site, where Birchwood Lane bends, there are two possible options for creation of a roundabout access into Nether Farm, which would also improve the access to the industrial site to the north, and could also serve the Clowes land. Although Mode Transport Planning’s Technical Note raises a question over the deliverability of the large roundabout option due to their uncertainty over land ownership boundary, we can confirm that the land ownership of Mr Swain at Nether Farm will allow both roundabout solutions to be delivered. A single roundabout or dual roundabouts are both therefore technically feasible and deliverable.

The above demonstrates that there is more than one achievable option for providing an appropriate access to Nether Farm to achieve development at Nether Farm for its identified capacity of 250 units, and one access location could also serve the land to the north.

B) Existing Highways Capacity

At this stage, the principal highway-related determining factor to the potential for Somercotes to accommodate additional residential development is the capacity of the Nottingham Road (B600), and this together with the A38 is the principal distributor road connecting Somercotes with the wider area.

A number of different sensitivity tests have been carried out by Mode Transport Planning to access the capacity of Nottingham Road (B600). The data covers the length of the B600 between the A38 and Nottingham Road/High Street (B6016). The report shows that this road is currently running at 76-85% capacity.

If the extant permission on the Clowes land is built out, the traffic will increase to 83- 93% of capacity.

Table 4 of the Mode Transport Technical Note shows the highways capacity of Nottingham Road if the Clowes employment commitment is built out and Nether Farm is developed for housing. Traffic rises to 92% of capacity southbound and 102% northbound. Whilst this is marginally above the capacity for north-bound traffic, the assessment is based on robust, worst-case assumptions. Paragraph 6.9 of the Technical Note concludes that development at Nether Farm can be accommodated in conjunction with the extant planning permission for employment development on the Clowes land.

The Mode Transport Technical Note also looks at the impact on highway capacity if the Clowes land is developed for residential purposes instead of employment, cumulatively with the Nether Farm site. This sensitivity test is Table 7 of the Transport Technical Note and shows that, southbound traffic on the B600 would be 100% and north bound 108% of capacity. Although this would appear to exceed design capacity, the assessment has been undertaken using robust assumptions and with greater detail of the proposals and refinement to the modelling, it is expected that the cumulative traffic generation would be within the highway capacity.

Paragraph 7.14 of the Technical Note concludes that residential development of the entire AV3 land can be safely accommodated on the local road network. There is no evidence at this stage that Birchwood Lane or Cockshutt Lane present any constraint to development of Nether Farm.

2) Comparison with ‘Preferred Strategic’ sites

Policy LS1 of the Local Plan (2006) sets out the criteria by which Amber Valley Borough Council will assess the appropriateness of location for new development. The criteria include, a) relation to existing patterns of development, b) using previously developed land, c) protecting and enhancing built and natural environment and d) minimising the need to travel. At this stage it is not clear whether the Growth Strategy will supersede this policy, and so for consistency it is relevant to consider the policy criteria.

A) Relation to existing patterns of development

The NPPF provides help with interpretation of this policy objective. The NPPF directs that economic, social and environmental considerations should be taken into account collectively in planning for sustainable development. In order for the Local Plan to deliver sustainable development which balances social, economic and environmental considerations, it is necessary for new housing to be provided where it can support and be supported by employment development.

The NPPF also advises that development plans should respond positively to opportunities for growth (paragraph 17). Significant development should be focused where it can be made sustainable, making the fullest possible use of public transport, cycling and walking.

The Nether Farm site is well placed in terms of connectivity by sustainable transport modes with local shops, services, schools and employment opportunities and existing urban centres locally and further afield. The Nether Farm site is within walking distance of the existing Cotes Park Industrial Estate and is ideally located to provide housing to support the economic growth of Amber Valley, the need for which underpins the housing target for the Borough.

The same cannot be said of all the “Preferred Allocation” sites identified in the PGS.

The NPPF advises that Plans should allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value.

The Nether Farm site is Agricultural Land Classification Grade 4. It is therefore the second lowest grade of agricultural land on a scale of 1 to 5. The site adjoins existing housing and is well related to the layout of the settlement.

The Nether Farm site is better situated to have a positive economic impact on Amber Valley’s Market Towns than the Radbourne Lane site which is more likely to support economies in Derby.

The relationship of the Nether Farm site with existing and proposed development is entirely consistent with the advice of the NPPF for the provision and allocation of sites for housing. A significant proportion of the “preferred allocation” sites do not have such a good relationship with existing development and the Nether Farm site is preferable to those currently identified ‘preferred allocations’.

B) Previously developed land

Like the majority of sites identified as ‘preferred’ sites, Nether Farm is not previously developed land. It is therefore on a par with many of the preferred sites on this criterion alone.

C) Protecting and enhancing the built and natural environment

Nether Farm is not in the Green Belt, neither is it adjacent to Green Belt land. Nether Farm is suitable for residential development and is preferable in sustainability terms to the release of sites AV7 and AV8 from the Green Belt.

The development of Nether Farm would not negatively impact any sensitive built or natural features and is therefore preferable on this measure to sites AV2, AV8, AV14 and AV17.

With regard to protecting and enhancing the natural and built environment, Nether Farm (AV3) is superior to ‘preferred allocation’ sites AV2, AV7, AV8, AV13, AV14, and AV17.

D) Minimising the need to travel

As set out under section A) above, many of sites currently identified as ‘preferred allocations’ are not well placed in terms of patterns of existing development and in particular accessibility to schools, shops, services and employment by walking, cycling and public transport. A consequence of this is that at least some of these sites, if developed for housing, would mean their future populations would need to rely on travel by private car, which is unsustainable and contrary to NPPF policy.

Nether Farm is in walking distance to the services and employment sources of Somercotes and is only 2.5 miles from Alfreton train station. The Nether Farm site therefore has the potential to reduce the need to travel and is preferable to some of the ‘preferred allocations’ in this regard. A brief review of some of the constraints on some of the current ‘preferred allocation’ sites demonstrates that there are serious shortcomings with a number of the ‘preferred allocations’ in terms of their ability to deliver sustainable development. The Nether Farm site is superior to all the ‘preferred allocation’ sites on at least one sustainability and suitability measure.

3) Preferred Growth Strategy Methodologies

The Preferred Growth Strategy seeks to make allocations for the delivery of strategic housing sites only. The threshold of 500+ dwellings has been quoted as the definition of strategic, but this is not borne out by the preferred allocation at Coppice Farm which would provide approximately 350 dwellings. There is no reason for the PGS to seek to identify strategic sites only as this is not supported by the NPPF. The fact that the PGS ‘preferred allocations’ do not all comply with the stated objective means that all sites should be considered for allocation now, and with sufficient capacity to meet all of the identified housing need for the Borough.

Paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes by:

 using evidence base to ensure Local Plans meet the full, objectively assessed needs for the market and affordable housing in the housing market. This should include but is not restricted to identifying key sites;

 identifying and updating an annual supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements, with buffers to allow for a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land;

 identifying a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for 6-10 and where possible, for years 11-15; for market and affordable housing, illustrating expected rates of housing delivery through a housing trajectory and setting out a housing implementation strategy for the full range of housing.

The wording of paragraph 47 is designed to apply as flexible an approach as possible to housing land and importantly does not preclude the consideration of any size site in the compilation of housing land supply. There is nothing in the NPPF to define a strategic site as 500 units.

Similarly, whilst paragraph 52 of the NPPF recognises the supply of new homes can ‘sometimes’ be best achieved through larger scale developments, this is not always the case and outside urban areas, a more piecemeal approach to housing land allocation may be more appropriate.

Applying a 500 unit threshold for identifying potential housing land in Amber Valley has the potential consequence of restricting the type and location of housing opportunity unnecessarily.

The ‘preferred allocations’ currently identified in the PGS have a combined potential housing capacity of circa 3,900 dwellings. This would leave just 500 units to find through non-strategic sites over the remainder of the plan period (up to 2026) on the basis of the 9,000 unit allocation for Amber Valley (minus the stated 4,600 dwellings already identified through completions, extant permissions, Local Plan allocations and expected “windfall sites”). If these figures are robust and can be relied upon, the there seems to be little need, in light of the availability of suitable sites, not to allocate the remaining 500 units as part of the Preferred Growth Strategy document. To include smaller housing sites would assist the Council’s ultimate requirement of demonstrating a rolling 5 year housing land supply.

Amber Valley Borough Council apparently combined the land north and south of Birchwood Lane without consulting either land owner. Whilst Mr Swain is not necessarily against this approach we have demonstrated that the Nether Farm site is suitable, available and deliverable for housing development with or without the Clowes land to the north. If there is justification for seeking to allocate strategic sites only, then Nether Farm is able to come forward as a strategic site in conjunction with the Clowes site. There does however, appear to be no justification for excluding Nether Farm from consideration for allocation individually where it would still make a significant and valuable contribution to the overall housing supply.

Conclusion

These representations demonstrate that the two previously-perceived restrictions on the Nether Farm site, that of accessibility to services and existing highways capacity, are incorrect. Nether Farm is well placed in terms of existing services and employment facilities and is also well placed in terms of connectivity to public transport networks.

Mode Transport Planning has demonstrated that there is capacity in the local road network for Nether Farm to be built out for up to 250 residential units both with the Clowes land developed for the employment commitment, or alternatively developed for housing for a cumulative development of 680 units.

The Nether Farm site compares favourably with the ‘preferred allocations’ identified in the PGS. Nether Farm is better connected to existing settlements, would have no impact on either protected natural and built development; is not at risk of hazardous installations or flooding and is of a poor agricultural land classification. Nether Farm is better located with regard to accessibility to shops, services and employment by sustainable transport modes. The Nether Farm site both individually, and cumulatively with the Clowes land, is therefore more sustainable and preferable in accordable with the NPPF to a number of the PGS identified preferred allocations.

The Council’s stance in seeking to allocate only ‘strategic’ sites at this point is also questioned. The threshold of 500+ units is arbitrary and is not recognised in the NPPF.

Nether Farm is able to come forward for 250 units individually or cumulatively with Clowes land for 680 units. Despite the Council’s apparent threshold of 500 units, the ‘preferred’ sites include sites with the capacity for less that 500 units and it is therefore appropriate that Nether Farm be considered individually as well as cumulatively with Clowes Development land.

Nether Farm represents a highly sustainable and appropriate location for housing development. Allocation of the site for housing development would accord with the NPPF and would be preferable to all existing preferred allocations in one or more respect. Nether farm is suitable, achievable, and deliverable within the short term. The site owner is willing for the land to come forward for residential development and Savills believe that there is a market for the development and sale of houses on the site. We therefore commend the Nether Farm site to you for proposed allocation for housing in the first phase of the plan.

Steedman Planning

Support a non strategic site to the south of Birchwood Lane, Somercotes for allocation.

The delivery of the rate of development required would be more likely to be achieved if a larger number of smaller sites were identified which would be capable of immediate delivery.

The potential capacity of the site is around 300 dwellings and consists of the southern part of AV3 in Appendix A of the consultation. Importantly, the site lies outside significant policy restraint areas, such as the Green Belt and is well related to the existing urban form.

The only disadvantage referred to in the consultation document can be overcome by investment in road improvements, which would have a wider benefit of improving the existing traffic arrangements for householders in the vicinity.

Barton Willmore – Response on behalf of Taylor Wimpey East Midlands

Land East of Chesterfield Road, Alfreton (AV1) should be selected as a preferred non strategic site for up to 270 dwellings for the following reasons:

Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd own land east of Chesterfield Road, Alfreton. The site is included within the Derby HMA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment SHLAA (2008), which identifies sites that have the potential for residential development. The SHLAA concludes that land east of Chesterfield Road, Alfreton may be potentially suitable for housing.

The Site extends to approximately 17.4 hectares of greenfield land located to the north west of Alfreton. The Site comprises of land used for agriculture, with field boundaries which include trees and hedgerows. The is identified in the Preferred Growth Strategy as a 'Potential Strategic Site' for housing. The Site would be seen as a continuation of existing development to the north of Alfreton. The Site takes in land east of Chesterfield Road (A61), south of the B6025 (Park Lane) and west of the water treatment works and allotments. The Site is bordered by residential development to the south comprising of two storey semi detached properties.

In accordance with the NPPF, we have assessed the suitability of the site for allocation for housing in relation to the matters below:

Available

Taylor Wimpey are committed to the delivery of this site and confirm that the site is available for development immediately.

Suitable

The site is in a suitable location immediately adjacent to the western edge of Alfreton and within walking distance of the village centre. The Council's SHLAA confirms that it may be potentially suitable for housing.

Achievable

Taylor Wimpey confirm that housing could be delivered within the next five years.

Developable

The site is in a suitable and sustainable location for development. Taylor Wimpey are committed to the delivery of this site.

Deliverable

This site is deliverable within the timeframe of the emerging Local Plan and more specifically, within the next 5 years.

Signet Planning

Lily Street Farm (AV4) – have submitted proposals for a strategic employment site with other leisure uses. The following reasons have been given for allocating this site for this purpose:

 Excellent links to the A38 and M1 Motorway  There is a need for a strategic employment site in Amber Valley  The site is not in the Green Belt  There has already been significant investment in bringing the site forward, showing a clear willingness to deliver a sustainable development for the Borough.  The site is of sufficient size to ensure improved public transport links  There are no flood risk issues  There are no landscape, heritage or ecological designations on the site  Trees can be protected  There would be no impact on residential amenity  There are no topographical constraints to development  The site is well placed to attract inward investment and potential relocation sites for existing businesses who may otherwise leave the Borough  The site has the potential to attract complementary uses such as an hotel, restaurant etc.  There is sufficient space to provide opportunities to accommodate community leisure uses such as the Watchorn tennis club

Promoting land at Far Laund, Belper (AV11) for the following reasons:

 The site is deliverable and a range of opportunities exist to deliver a high quality development  The site is in the Green Belt but lies outside of the World Heritage Area Buffer Zone and outside the River Derwent floodplain  The site provides a very sustainable extension to Belper

Promoting a non strategic site off Heage Road, Ripley for the following reasons:

 Benefits from its close proximity to the A38 and the A610  Has good public transport links and via a series of surfaced, well lit public footpaths has good access to Ripley town centre  Highly suitable having no ecological, heritage or landscape designations  Is well located to the full range of everyday services needed to sustain a community  Currently located in the Green Belt but now isolated from the remainder of the Green Belt by the A38  It would deliver a high quality residential development  It would create an attractive new street scene along Heage Road  The site is deliverable and suitable given its suitable location and no constraints to development have been identified which cannot be positively addressed  Is not dependant on the very significant highway infrastructure investment needed to deliver the sites east of Ripley

Supports Land at Bullsmoor, Belper being retained as a non strategic employment allocation for the following reasons:

 Belper has very little employment land and few opportunities to provide local employment space  Site itself is close to the A38 which provides access to the M1  Not within Green Belt  Identified constraints can be overcome and that the proposal can come forward without detriment to both the World Heritage Site and the listed Pottery Farm  Will be high landscape content which will be in stark contrast to existing employment sites on offer in the Borough  Access can be achieved through the Vaillant site and discussions are underway to secure the most appropriate route  Site is deliverable and suitable given its suitable location  New planting and ecological enhancements will compensate and outweigh the loss of hedgerows and through the balance of locating open space on areas of the site more susceptible to public views and additional planting/screening visual impacts can be mitigated

Capita Symonds

Support Land at Hardy Barn, Heanor (AV15) for the following reasons:

 The site is unconstrained by landscape designations  The site has the potential to deliver a significant and strategic proportion of the Borough's housing requirement in line with the time scale of the Regional Plan  The site is available for development, has active developer interest and no significant constraint to its deliverability has been identified  The site has been previously identified in the SHLAA as potentially suitable and is both developable and deliverable. The land is in low intensity agricultural use and has a restricted visual envelope  The site is located directly adjacent to a settlement identified in the Regional Plan as an appropriate location for growth, and is situated within easy reach of key public transport facilities and areas of employment  The site has the potential to deliver a sustainable walkable community, with associated green infrastructure, and would support further investment in the town and contribute significantly to the regeneration of Heanor  The site will contribute to the delivery of much needed affordable housing and has the potential to deliver over 500 new dwellings, within a relatively short timescale  The site is well placed to deliver a significant sustainable extension that can maximise opportunities for the provision of a sustainable community, which will in tum support existing service provision, and green infrastructure to the benefit of the existing residents of Heanor  In 2001, the site was identified within the First Deposit Local Plan as a potential 'urban extension' to meet the Joint Structure Plan (JSP) Requirements  The delivery of the Regional Plan housing targets in the Borough will require a review of Green Belt boundaries in less sensitive, sustainable locations. The site has already been identified by the Council during the Local Plan process as a less sensitive and sustainable Green Belt location  There are a number of infant and primary schools within 1 mile of the site. There are a number of allotments and recreation spaces within 1 mile of the site. Most of the site lies within 1 mile of the centre of Heanor with shops and services available within walking distance  The site is just within 1 mile of Langley Mill mainline railway station and the new ASDA superstore  The site is well served by existing bus services  No physical constraints relating to flood risk, ecology, contamination or heritage assets have been identified at this stage  The site can be considered to be a sustainable, strategic level site, which is suitable, achievable and available

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners on Behalf of Commercial Estates Group

The “Plan Showing Potential Strategic Sites and Preferred Strategic Sites” identifies land to the north east of Preferred Strategic Site AV13 as a “Potential Strategic Site”. The report notes at page 23 that the Council is not proposing to identify “Potential Strategic Sites” for housing development in the Preferred Growth Strategy (PGS). CEG does not object to this as a matter of principle because, as is noted at page 26 of Appendix A, dwellings would not be delivered on the Green Belt land before the end of the plan period in 2028.

However, this approach does not address the need to fix Green Belt boundaries that are capable of enduring beyond 2028 as advocated by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) at para 83. To address this, and for the reasons outlined below, CEG considers that the Potential Strategic Site, which is currently within the Green Belt, should be identified as “safeguarded land”. This approach would be entirely in accordance with the NPPF, which specifically advises local planning authorities to, amongst other things and where necessary, identify areas of “safeguarded land” in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period (para 84).

Taking account of completions, commitments, existing Local Plan allocations and a windfall allowance, the Preferred Strategic Sites fall short of meeting the overall requirement for 9,000 new homes by 494 dwellings (the expectation being that this shortfall will be met through the identification of additional sites in a subsequent Site Allocations and Designation document). Even with this shortfall, and putting aside the fact that housing need is greater than the 9,000 dwellings, it is clear from the Preferred Growth Strategy that requirements cannot be met without the release of Green Belt land (i.e. sites at Nottingham Road, Ripley and Alfreton Road, Codnor).

Furthermore, given the significant reliance on strategic greenfield sites in this Local Plan (which make up 44% of the 9,000 requirement and 89% of the residual requirement), and the constrained brownfield urban capacity, it would not be unreasonable to assume that the next plan period would also significantly rely upon development on greenfield sites.

Any future development on greenfield sites is likely to be directed towards the east of the Borough (because a significant proportion of land to the west is open countryside and/or within a Special Landscape Area), which is largely Green Belt. The logical conclusion is, therefore, Green Belt boundaries would again need to be amended in the next plan period to meeting housing needs unless safeguarded land is identified now.

By identifying safeguarded land now, the Council would be protecting land to avoid encroachment into the Green Belt at a later stage and so ensuring that the designated Green Belt endures and is kept open permanently. It would not be allocated for development at the present time and planning permission for development of the site would only be granted following a Local Plan review which proposes the development, if it is needed.

The Potential Strategic Site to the North of Denby would be genuinely capable of development when needed and its location is well related to the development that would come forward on the Preferred Strategic Site, thereby making an efficient use of land. Moreover, taking into account the infrastructure that would be planned in to any housing-led development on the Preferred Strategic Site (including employment opportunities and a local centre comprising a new school, shops, health facilities and small businesses), the safeguarded land would also promote and help support sustainable development.

In this context, and given the contribution that the Potential Strategic Site could make towards the future delivery of a comprehensive sustainable development, CEG considers that the Green Belt land should be identified as safeguarded land.