DOCSLIB.ORG

Preferred Growth Strategy Summary of Comments'

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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 1 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 2 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. 3 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. 4 Kilburn Village Hall, Kilburn Around 40 local residents attended this public consultation, 4 of which submitted a consultation response form at the event. 5 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. 6 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. 7 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. 8 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Download Original Attachment
    Owner Name Address Postcode Current Rv THE OWNER TREETOP WORKSHOP THE BOTTOM YARD HORSLEY LN/DERBY RD COXBENCH DERBY DE21 5BD 1950 THE OWNER YEW TREE INN YEW TREE HILL HOLLOWAY MATLOCK, DERBYSHIRE DE4 5AR 3000 THE OWNER THE OLD BAKEHOUSE THE COMMON CRICH MATLOCK, DERBYSHIRE DE4 5BH 4600 THE OWNER ROOM 3 SECOND FLOOR VICTORIA HOUSE THE COMMON, CRICH MATLOCK, DERBYSHIRE DE4 5BH 1150 THE OWNER ROOM 2 SECOND FLOOR VICTORIA HOUSE THE COMMON CRICH MATLOCK, DERBYSHIRE DE4 5BH 800 THE OWNER WORKSHOP SUN LANE CRICH MATLOCK, DERBYSHIRE DE4 5BR 2600 THE OWNER JOVIAL DUTCHMAN THE CROSS CRICH MATLOCK, DERBYSHIRE DE4 5DH 3500 THE OWNER SPRINGFIELDS LEA MAIN ROAD LEA MATLOCK, DERBYSHIRE DE4 5GJ 1275 SLEEKMEAD PROPERTY COMPANY LTD PRIMROSE COTTAGE POTTERS HILL WHEATCROFT MATLOCK DERBYSHIRE DE4 5PH 1400 SLEEKMEAD PROPERTY COMPANY LTD PLAISTOW HALL FARM POTTERS HILL WHEATCROFT MATLOCK DERBYSHIRE DE4 5PH 1400 THE OWNER R/O 47 OXFORD STREET RIPLEY DERBYSHIRE DE5 3AG 2950 MACNEEL & PARTNERS LTD 53 OXFORD STREET RIPLEY DERBYSHIRE DE5 3AH 19000 MACNEEL & PARTNERS LTD OVER 53-57 OXFORD STREET (2399) RIPLEY DERBYSHIRE DE5 3AH 5000 THE OWNER 43A OXFORD STREET RIPLEY DERBYSHIRE DE5 3AH 2475 THE OWNER OXFORD CHAMBERS 41 OXFORD STREET RIPLEY DERBYSHIRE DE5 3AH 2800 THE OWNER OVER 4B OXFORD STREET RIPLEY DERBYSHIRE DE5 3AL 710 THE OWNER 3 WELL STREET RIPLEY DERBYSHIRE DE5 3AR 4550 LOCKWOOD PROPERTIES LTD DE JA VU 23 NOTTINGHAM ROAD RIPLEY DERBYSHIRE DE5 3AS 19500 THE OWNER REAR OF 94 NOTTINGHAM ROAD RIPLEY DERBYSHIRE DE5 3AX 1975 THE OWNER UNIT G PROSPECT COURT 192
    [Show full text]
  • School Administrator South Wingfield Primary School Church Lane South Wingfield Alfreton Derbyshire DE55 7NJ
    School Administrator South Wingfield Primary School Church Lane South Wingfield Alfreton Derbyshire DE55 7NJ School Administrator Newhall Green High School Brailsford Primary School Da Vinci Community College Newall Green High School Main Road St Andrew's View Greenbrow Road Brailsford Ashbourne Breadsall Manchester Derbys Derby Greater Manchester DE6 3DA DE21 4ET M23 2SX School Administrator School Administrator School Administrator Tower View Primary School Little Eaton Primary School Ockbrook School Vancouver Drive Alfreton Road The Settlement Winshill Little Eaton Ockbrook Burton On Trent Derby Derby DE15 0EZ DE21 5AB Derbyshire DE72 3RJ Meadow Lane Infant School Fritchley Under 5's Playgroup Jesse Gray Primary School Meadow Lane The Chapel Hall Musters Road Chilwell Chapel Street West Bridgford Nottinghamshire Fritchley Belper Nottingham NG9 5AA DE56 2FR Nottinghamshire NG2 7DD South East Derbyshire College School Administrator Field Road Oakwood Junior School Ilkeston Holbrook Road Derbyshire Alvaston DE7 5RS Derby Derbyshire DE24 0DD School Secretary School Secretary Leaps and Bounds Day Nursery Holmefields Primary School Ashcroft Primary School Wellington Court Parkway Deepdale Lane Belper Chellaston Sinfin Derbyshire Derby Derby DE56 1UP DE73 1NY Derbyshire DE24 3HF School Administrator Derby Grammar School School Administrator All Saints C of E Primary School Derby Grammar School Wirksworth Infant School Tatenhill Lane Rykneld Road Harrison Drive Rangemore Littleover Wirksworth Burton on Trent Derby Matlock Staffordshire Derbyshire
    [Show full text]
  • A38 Derby Junctions Scheme—Little Eaton Junction
    A38 DERBY JUNCTIONS SCHEME—LITTLE EATON JUNCTION. APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER. WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY BREADSALL PARISH COUNCIL TO THE EXAMINING AUTHORITY Part 1. Selection of the preferred route Breadsall Parish Council believes that the process by which Highways England (HE) and its predecessor the Highways Agency (HA) selected the preferred route for the Little Eaton junction was deeply flawed. As a result, the selection of the preferred route should be completely re-examined before the current Development Consent Order is processed. The selection process for the preferred route is described in Highways England’s own document “A38 Derby Junctions Scheme Assessment Report (PCF Stage 2)” a copy of which is attached. See especially section 5. BPC’s comments below quote paragraph numbers from this report. Much of the same material is contained in the “6.1 Environmental Statement Chapter 3 -Scheme history and assessment of alternatives” submitted by HE as part of the DCO application In highway terms the obvious way to re-design the Little Eaton junction is to route the A38 to the north of the present junction. This is the shortest and most direct route for the A38, and this was indeed the basis for options 1 and 2 originally proposed by the HA in 2002 (See para 5.4.1). In 2003 HA held a public consultation exercise based on revised high-speed versions of options 1 and 2 and a new third option routed to the south of the present junction (See para 5.4.6). In 2004 HA decided “on balance” to support the third option which is the basis of the current scheme.
    [Show full text]
  • Derbyshire Parish Registers. Marriages
    942.51019 M. L; Aalp v.4 1379092 GENEALOGY COLLECTION ALLEN COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY 3 1833 00727 4241 DERBYSHIRE PARISH REGISTERS. flDarriagea, IV. phiiximore's parish register series. vol. xc. (derbyshire, vol. iv.) One hundred and fifty only printed. I0.ip.cj : Derbyshire Parish Registers, flftat triages. Edited by W. P. W. PHILLIMORE, M.A., B.C.L., AND LL. LL. SIMPSON. £,c VOL. IV. ILon&on Issued to the Subscribers by Phillimore & Co., 124, Chancery Lane. 1908. — PREFACE. As promised in the last volume of the Marriage Registers of Derbyshire, the marriage records of St. Alkmund's form the first instalment of the Registers of the County Town. The Editors do not doubt that these will prove especially interesting to Derbyshire people. In Volume V they hope to print further instalments of town registers in the shape of those of St. Michael's and also some village registers. It will be noticed that St. Alkmund's register begins at the earliest possible date, 1538, but of the remainder, two do not start till the seventeenth century and one, that of Quarndon, synchronizes with the passing of Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act. 1379092 It will be convenient to give here a list of the Derby- shire parishes of which the Registers have been printed in this series: Volume I. Volume II. Dale Abbey Boulton Brailsford Duffield Stanton-by-Dale Hezthalias Lownd Volume III. Stanley or Lund Duffield Spondon Breaston Church Broughton Mellor Kirk Ireton Sandiacre Hault Hucknall Volume IV. Risley Mackworth Derby— St. Alkmund's Ockbrook Allestree Quarndon Tickenhall Foremark It has not been thought needful to print the entries — verbatim.
    [Show full text]
  • Agency Information - Environmental Health (V3.0 2020 July) Page 1 of 2
    Information about agencies to be shared in ‘Making Enquiries under S.42’ training 1. Who are we? Environmental Health Service 2. Who are we? Each Local Authority, with the exception of Derbyshire County Council (DCC), has environmental health professionals in the form of Environmental Health Officers (EHOs)/ Environmental Health Practitioners (EHPs)/ Environmental Health Technical Officers (EHTO), Enforcement Officers who can enforce various types of public health, housing, pollution, food and health and safety legislation. They are primarily regulatory officers but do play a major role in protecting public health, maintaining a safe environment and have both technical and scientific expertise to offer support and advice to partnering agencies, businesses, community groups and the public. 3. What do we do? (The below text sets out some of the relevant areas in s.42 enquiries, but is not limited to these items). EHOs/EHPs/EHTOs/Enforcement Officers have a regulatory role in ensuring public safety in a wide number of areas; being responsible for carrying out measures to protect public health, enforcing legislation relating to the natural and built environments that benefit human health and providing support to minimize health and safety hazards. Particular statutory obligations relate to domestic home environments to ensure ‘fitness for habitation’ by the removal of serious hazards (known as Category 1 hazards*) to achieve the ideal standards within a property. The risk of harm to a person may arise given physical and psychological hazards in the home environment i.e. structural collapse, carbon monoxide from defective appliances, or excess cold from poorly heated and insulated homes. Table 1 below indicates some of the key hazard areas which are checked when a property is assessed by an EH Professional.
    [Show full text]
  • Land at Blacksmith's Arms
    Land off North Road, Glossop Education Impact Assessment Report v1-4 (Initial Research Feedback) for Gladman Developments 12th June 2013 Report by Oliver Nicholson EPDS Consultants Conifers House Blounts Court Road Peppard Common Henley-on-Thames RG9 5HB 0118 978 0091 www.epds-consultants.co.uk 1. Introduction 1.1.1. EPDS Consultants has been asked to consider the proposed development for its likely impact on schools in the local area. 1.2. Report Purpose & Scope 1.2.1. The purpose of this report is to act as a principle point of reference for future discussions with the relevant local authority to assist in the negotiation of potential education-specific Section 106 agreements pertaining to this site. This initial report includes an analysis of the development with regards to its likely impact on local primary and secondary school places. 1.3. Intended Audience 1.3.1. The intended audience is the client, Gladman Developments, and may be shared with other interested parties, such as the local authority(ies) and schools in the area local to the proposed development. 1.4. Research Sources 1.4.1. The contents of this initial report are based on publicly available information, including relevant data from central government and the local authority. 1.5. Further Research & Analysis 1.5.1. Further research may be conducted after this initial report, if required by the client, to include a deeper analysis of the local position regarding education provision. This activity may include negotiation with the relevant local authority and the possible submission of Freedom of Information requests if required.
    [Show full text]
  • First Contact Booklets by Emailing [email protected]
    First Contact Derbyshire Signposting Scheme Helping people stay safe and independent. First Contact Derbyshire What is First Contact Derbyshire? First Contact is a free service for adults living in Derbyshire. It provides an easy way for you to get in touch with local services who can support your wellbeing and help you stay independent. We run the scheme in partnership with a variety of local agencies (listed on page 7). Who can use First Contact? It is for anyone over the age of eighteen who thinks that they could benefit from the scheme. How does the Scheme work? 1. Complete the form in the middle of this leaflet. 2. Tear out the full form and send it to Call Derbyshire (the address is on the form). 3. Referrals are then processed by Call Derbyshire and sent to the relevant agencies. 4. You’ll be sent a letter detailing which agencies will contact you / send information. 5. The agencies will contact you directly to see what, if any, support can be offered. Alternatively you can now complete a First Contact form online at www.derbyshire.gov.uk/firstcontactform We also have an easy read version of the form that can be downloaded at www.derbyshire.gov.uk/firstcontact If you are a professional you can order a stock of First Contact booklets by emailing [email protected] 02 First Contact Derbyshire www.derbyshire.gov.uk First Contact offers access to: Staying safe and secure at home Smoke alarm & fire safety / home security / support for victims of scams or rogue traders / falls prevention / community alarms Housing support
    [Show full text]
  • Derbyshire. Far 473
    TRADES DIRECTORY. DERBYSHIRE. FAR 473 Ashton Mrs. M.Cowdale,Kingsterndale Baker Mrs. Hannah, Hardhurst, Al-, Barnes T.The Beet,Brownside,Stckprt .Ashton Thomas Shaw, Highfield house, .vaston, Derby Barnett William, Cubley lane, Mar- 'Vheston, Buxton Bakewell George, Scropton, Derby ston Montgomery, Derby Ashton Wm. WhitwelI, Chesterfield iRakewell George R. Scropton, Derby Barnsley G. Dam hole, Peak Forest, Ashton WilIis,Underbank, Hope-Wood- Bakewell James, Egginton, Burton- Stockport lands, Sheffield upon-Trent Barnsley Richard, Aldwark, Brad- Ashworth Thomas, MelIor, Stockport Baldwin Joseph, Crich, Matlock Bath bourne, lYirksworth S.O .Askew J. HiIlcote, BIackweIl, Alireton Ball .Arthur, Boylestone, Derby Barratt J. Delves, Shirland, Alfreton Askew lWilliam, HoImegate, Clay Hall A. Sleet moor, Swanwick,Alfretn Barratt Peter, Marsh green, ChapBl- Cross, Ches'terfield Ball C. 'Cumber hills, Duffield, Derby en-le-Frith, Stockport .Askew Mrs. Wm. Brightmore, Cuckoo Ball Elijah, Blackwell, Alfreton BaI"l'att Reginald BIake, Newton 801- -stone, Matlock Bank, Matlock Bath Ball H. Newton Solney, Brtn-on-Trnt ney, Bur"ton-upon-Trent .Aspinall 8eth, Beighton, Rotherham Ball L. Newton 10. BlackwelI, Alfreton Barrett W. Garner la.S.Wingfld.A1frtn .AsUe .Alfred, Walton-upon-Trent,Bur- Ball Manton, Calow, Chesterfield Barrs H. Repton, Burton-on-Trent ton-upon-Trent Ball Mrs. Mary, Blackwell, Alfreton Bartholomew E. KilIamarsh, Rothrhm Astle Edward, Hilton, Derby BambridgB John, Hognaston,AshboTnil Bartholomew Thos. Elmton, Chestrfld Astle J. The Common, Etwall, Derby Bamford D. Ditch, Priestcliffe,Buxton Bass G. Span earr, Ashover, Chstrfld Atkins Charles, Hilton, Derby Bamford Edmd. Tibshelf, Alfreton Bateman 'Francis, Nether Greenfield, Atkins Henry J. Mount Pleasant, Bancroft Thomas, Marlpool, Derby Harthill, BakewelI Churoh Broughton, Derby Banister E.
    [Show full text]
  • The Local Plan Part 1: Core Strategy Regulation 22 Statement of Consultation
    The Local Plan Part 1: Core Strategy Regulation 22 Statement of Consultation December 2013 This page is intentionally blank 2 Contents 1. Introduction 2 2. Regulation 18 – Summary of the Main Issues Raised 2 2.1 Background 2 2.2 Summary of comments from the public 3 2.3 Summary of comments from Parish/Town Councils 53 2.4 Summary of comments from Borough/County Councillors/MP 64 2.5 Summary of comments from neighbouring local authorities 82 and Derbyshire County Council 2.6 Summary of comments from national bodies 96 2.7 Summary of comments from local groups 123 2.8 Summary of comments from developers, landowners 151 and consultants 3. Regulation 20 – Summary of the Main Issues Raised 202 Appendix A – Persons and bodies invited to make representations 234 under regulation 18 3 This page is intentionally blank 1. Introduction Under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, a local authority is required when submitting a local plan to produce a statement setting out: (i) which bodies and persons the local authority invited to make representations under regulation 18, (ii) how those bodies and persons were invited to make representations under regulation 18, (iii) a summary of the main issues raised by the representations made pursuant to regulation 18, (iv) how any representations made pursuant to regulation 18 have been taken into account; (v) if representations were made pursuant to regulation 20, the number of representations made and a summary of the main issues raised in those representations; and (vi) if no representations were made in regulation 20, that no such representations were made.
    [Show full text]
  • 1.0 Introduction
    1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 THE COUNCIL’S FIVE YEAR REQUIREMENT AND SUPPLY POSITION 3.0 NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE 4.0 ADOPTED AND EMERGING LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 5.0 HOUSING REQUIREMENT 6.0 FIVE YEAR LAND SUPPLY 7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 – JOHNSON BROOK TEN YEAR TRAJECTORY APPENDIX 2 – INSPECTOR’S LETTER RE CORE STRATEGY EXAMINATION 12TH MAY 2014 APPENDIX 3 – APPEAL DECISION APP/M1005/A/14/2226553, LAND AT ROES LANE, CRICH – 13TH JULY 2015 1 Johnson Brook Ltd AVBC – Five Year Housing Land Supply Review December 2015 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Johnson Brook (JB) are instructed by to review the updated position on five year housing land supply (November 2015) published by Amber Valley (‘the Council’) in July 2015. 1.2 Our assessment (‘the Assessment’) provides a detailed commentary on all aspects of ‘the ‘statement’ in order to establish whether the Council’s five year land supply position is robust. 1.3 The Council have previously acknowledged a deliverable five year housing land supply cannot be demonstrated, indeed this was the case in a recent appeal decision at Roes Lane, Crich1 (13 July 2015) to which the appointed Inspector found that the housing land supply was somewhere between 35% and 65% of the requirement. In contrast, the Council’s recently adopted position on five year housing land supply details a supply of 5.15 years for the period 2015/16 to 2019/20. 1.4 The Council have not produced a detailed commentary on specific sites, however have produced a trajectory providing the Council’s anticipated timings and delivery rates for sites forming the five year housing land supply position.
    [Show full text]
  • The London Gazette, 27 March, 1923
    2344. THE LONDON GAZETTE, 27 MARCH, 1923. (Derbyshire Lines), bridge carrying the Scottish Railway (Blackwell Branch) over road from Tibshelf to Sawpit Lane over Fordbridge Lane. -the London and North Eastern Railway Parish of Tibshelf— (Tibshelf Colliery Branch). Bridges carrying the London, Midland (D) Roads under the following bridges:— and Scottish Railway over the roads from Tibshelf to Westhouses and from Tibshelf In the urban district of Sutton-in-Ash- to Morton, bridge carrying the London, fieldt— Midland and Scottish Railway (Tibshelf Bridge carrying the London and North and Pleasley) over Newton Lane, bridges Eastern Railway (Mansfield Railway) over carrying the London and North Eastern Coxmoor Road. Railway (Derbyshire Lines) over Newton Lane and Pit Lane, bridge carrying the In the urban district of Kirkby-in-Ash- London and North Eastern Railway (Tib- field:— shelf Colliery Branch) over Sawpit Lane. Bridge carrying the London, Midland and (E) Railways: — Scottish Railway (Mansfield and Pinxton) over Mill Lane, bridge carrying the In the urban district of Sutton-in-Ash- •London, Midland and Scottish Railway field: — (Bentinck Branch) over Park Lane, bridge Level crossings of the London, Midland carrying the London and North Eastern and Scottish Railway (Nottingham and Railway (Langton Colliery Branch) over Mansfield) in Station Road and Coxmoor the road from Kirkby-in-Ashfield to Road. - Finxton, bridges carrying^ mineral rail- ways at Kirkby Colliery over Southwell In the urban district of Huthwaiter — Lane, bridge carrying mineral railway at Level crossing of mineral railway from Bentinck Colliery over Mill Lane. New Hucknall Colliery in Common Road. In the urban district of Kirkby-in-Ash- In the rural district of Basford: — field: — Parish of Linby— Bridge carrying the London and NortL .Level crossings of the London, Midland Eastern Railway over the road from and Scottish Railway (Nottingham and Linby to Annesley.
    [Show full text]
  • Nottingham-Derby Green Belt Review
    Nottingham-Derby Green Belt Review Lynette Hughes Nottinghamshire County Council and Steve Buffery Derbyshire County Council 24 August 2006 This is an information and discussion paper. It is the work of officers and has not been formally considered by any authority. It therefore does not represent the views of any authority or other body. Comments on the paper are welcome and can be forwarded to [email protected] or [email protected]. Executive Summary Page 1 of 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The review comprises: 1. The working paper drafted in March 2006 and finalised in April 2006 2. The assessment paper drafted in July 2006 and finalised in August 2006 3. The implications paper produced in August 2006 The review is the work of officers and has not been formally considered by any authority. The findings of the review have been considered in the formulation of the draft 3 Cities SRS and the draft Northern SRS which will form part of the Regional Plan to be published on 28 September 2006 and tested at a public examination in 2007. A project plan produced and agreed in December 2005 and added to in April 2006 have guided the review work. The review has started from the point that the principle of the green belt is well established and will remain. However, the review is related to the needs of development in the areas where there is green belt at present. General areas for possible extensions to the green belt have also been considered. The government's sustainable communities plan requires that the current area of green belt land within each region should be maintained or increased.
    [Show full text]