Canal Reinstatement In Consultation by CRIB With local residents with regard to a vision for the Stevensons Site

1

Contents

CRIB ...... 3 The Consultation ...... 5 Letter to Residents…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6 Questionnaire ...... 9 Postcodes of respondents ...... 13 The results ...... 15 Question 1 ...... 16 Comments received for Question 1...... 17 Question 2 ...... 19 Comments received for Question 2 ...... 20 Question 3 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….22 Comments from question 3 ...... 23 Question 4 ...... 24 Comments received for question 4...... 25 Question 5 ...... 26 Comments for question 5 ...... 27 Question 6: ...... 28 Comments received from Question 6 ...... 29 Question 7: ...... 30 Comments from Question 7...... 31 Question 8: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………32 .Comments from Question 8……………………………………………………………………………………………………33 .Question 9: ...... 35 Comments from Question 9 ...... 36 Summary ...... 39 What Happens Next…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………41

2

CRIB (Canal Regeneration In BullbrBullbridge)idge)

In 2009 a Civic Society was formed in response to concern that the line of the Canal was compromised by the plans for the development of the Stevenson’s Site at Bullbridge. This society, The Bullbridge and Sawmills Area Civic Society (BASA) and The Friends of made representation to Planning and met with representatives of the Developers and were assured that the line of the canal would be preserved. BASA was pleased to hear this and proceeded to address other concerns of local residents such as the type of houses to be built, as there were no homes for local elderly or disabled residents or for first time buyers.

Since 2009 the developers have gone into liquidation, into receivership and passed between banks, the site now being up for sale. Money ringfenced for site clearance and decontamination has been utilised to clear and reprofile the site, revealing a stunning south facing space surrounded by trees, hills and bordered by a river. In the final days of the clearance we received information that once the site was purchased and redeveloped for housing it would be virtually impossible to restore the canal to water through the site. It seems that the access would be insufficient with no room for plant, drainage systems or for any works. It is also likely that there would be resistance from home owners, who would understandably resist such upheaval.

The realisation that actual reinstatement of the Cromford Canal might be doomed despite the line being preserved inspired the BASA committee to set up a group that would campaign for the reinstatement of the canal itself through the site. Representatives of The Friends of Cromford Canal, an architect, a councillor, planning expert and an engineer joined the group and CRIB was formed. The object of the group was to campaign for the canal to be restored to water AT THE SAME TIME as the building of the houses . This means that CRIB would be campaigning for the canal to be restored to water by the developers.

This seems a tall order (and indeed it is!) but there really is no choice but to try or lose another significant part of the canal forever. In effect the loss of the canal through Bullbridge would leave the FCC with two canals and the would lose an important structure which has the potential to generate opportunities for tourism and jobs in an area which has lost much of its industry.

CRIB is aware that developers need to make money (and tend to be risk averse) so clearly some way to fund the reinstatement of the canal, which our architect and engineer estimate would be in excess of one million pounds, would have to be found. The uplift in the value of canal side properties would increase the profit margin and our architect believes that higher density, good quality housing that reflects the needs of the area, while making use of a unique site, could also generate the funds required.

CRIB accepts that this sort of development will require a developer with a different mindset and they will be actively seeking, and discussing with, potential developers.

CRIB believes that the developer might also be concerned that a radical change from the usual developments might meet with opposition from local residents. While CRIB’s major concern is that

3 the Cromford Canal is at risk from the development, it realised that the opportunity to address concerns raised by the Bullbridge and Sawmills Area Civic Society with regards to the type of houses proposed by developers, could also be addressed at the same time.

CRIB decided to ask those residents that would be most affected by the Stevenson Site development for their views. This would help CRIB to ascertain how people felt about CRIB’s campaign and also provide local knowledge and ideas to broaden the scope of our information

CRIB decided to Consult formally with residents and record their views to offer to planners in the first instance and the developer once the site was sold.

4

The Consultation

CRIB decided to post questionnaires to each household in the area. These questionnaires would be attached to a letter of introduction and explanation. An Open Consultation evening at Sawmills Village hall was planned and advertised and a webpage was set up which enabled people to fill in the questionnaire electronically (Survey Monkey)

Attached to each questionnaire was the offer of help or a different format to enable those with specific needs to be included.

CRIB decided that the returns should be anonymous, but with the facility to identify that someone was from the area. Each responder was asked to give their postcode and each return given a number in the order of receipt, which also helped to get some sort of profile of each responder.

CRIBs understanding was that for a survey to be considered viable a 20% return was needed. As we posted to 350 houses our target was a return of 70 questionnaires. 79 were received.

The letters with questionnaires were posted two to three weeks before the Consultation Evening

At the consultation evening on the 1 st December 2016 maps, plans and related documents were provided. And CRIB ensured ensured enough people were available to discuss the ideas and support with form filling. The turnout was not as high as was hoped, but did give CRIB members the opportunity to talk to those that did. Simultaneously we were receiving the postal and electronic responses.

Appended next is a copy of the information letter and the questionnaire

5

Newsletter This was sent to all residents of the area with a copy of the Questionnaire

Canal Restoration In BullbridBullbridgege (CRIB)

CRIB is a group which has been set up to attempt to convince any future developer of the Stevensons site of the benefits of restoring the length of the Cromford canal across the site from the road bridge to the Hagg entrance, during the development of the site.

A Brief History of the Site.

Prior to 1792 Bullbridge was the location of a crossing point for a Drover’s road over the . In 1792 the Cromford canal arrived, engineered by and , It was constructed along a contour line from Cromford to and onwards to join the Erewash and canals at . the arrival of the canal led to the creation of a lime works with 6 lime kilns at the side of the canal (using lime brought down from the quarries at on a track way) and the creation of cottages with stabling for the canal horses ,wharves , warehouses and shops to support the canal

In 1840 the arrival of George Stephenson’s ( to Sheffield line) led to the building of a gas works on the corner of what is now Drovers Way.

There was a small dye works on the side of the River Amber next to the Lord Nelson which in 1908 was taken over by Stevensons which gradually expanded to become the second largest dye works in Europe before closing in 2008 and being demolished since then.

The canal on the site was filled in in the 1960’s and tarmacked over and used as a road cum carpark.

The site has now been cleared and all areas of polluted land have been cleaned up ready to be built upon by developers.

TTTheThe Current Position

The original outline planning permission for 174 properties has lapsed but the new owners of the site are applying for a similar new planning permission.

We hope to talk to the developers before they draw up their plans, to sell them the advantages of restoring the length of canal at the same time as they are building the estate.

1 This would save disruption to future owners of the properties adjoining the canal.

2 By incorporating the canal into the drainage system of the site, to provide a storage system for excess water in severe downpours.

6

3 Enhanced house prices in properties adjoining the canal.

4 Creating a wildlife corridor east west across the site

5 Creating a pleasant, safe and flat area for less able people to take exercise and fresh air.

6 To link up the towpath to existing footpaths to provide a safer walking route to rail- way station for commuters and the like.

.

Our Proposals

These provisions would allow younger locals to remain in the area and older residents to remain in the area whilst freeing up reasonably priced family homes.

To this end a local architect has worked out costed plans for us on the basis of the existing outline planning permission, plus he has provided us with alternate plans for the site which include providing some starter homes, shared ownership homes and accessible housing and greater profit to the developers to more than cover the cost of the canal restoration. This could increase the number of properties on the site to around 245 but as the extra homes would be smaller footprint they would not overcrowd the site.

7

8

Questionnaire

CRIB would like your opinion on their vision for the Stevenson’s site. We hope you will find time to read the attached statement and share your thoughts in this questionnaire. Please put a cross in the box that best reflects your views.

CRIB is holding a consultation evening on Thursday 1 st December 2016 at Sawmills Village Hall from 6.00 until 8.00 To present the suggested design plan George Jones a respected local architect will be in attendance. A planning expert and an engineer with expertise in canals will also be available and will be happy to answer any questions and listen to resident’s views.

1.CRIB wants to see the Cromford Canal reinstated through the Stevensons site

*Do you agree with this idea?

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Don’t know

Comment

2.CRIB would like to see more homes for existing members of our community, including older and disabled people and first time buyers.

*Do you agree?

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Don’t know

Comment

9

3. The reinstatement of the canal through the Stevensons’ Site could incur a considerable cost to the developer. This cost could be met by the building of more, lower cost housing.

*Are you in agreement with the construction of more lower cost housing to enable the canal to be restored?

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Don’t know

Comment

4. CRIB believes that the old Malthouse on Bullbridge Hill should be preserved and used as a community Building.

*Do you agree?

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Don’t know

Comment

5. CRIB would like to see provision made for wildlife on the site.

*Do you agree with this idea?

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Don’t know

Comment

10

6. CRIB believes that the developers should consider environmental issues, such as, for example, low carbon building, rainwater catchment, hydroelectric power generated by the canal, solar panels and green spaces.

*Do you agree?

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Don’t know

Comment

7.CRIB believes that the reinstatement of the Cromford Canal throughout our area will help with regeneration and increase opportunities for tourism and jobs.

*Do you share this idea?

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Don’t know

Comment

8. It is possible that a small part of the site could be used for Social Housing (Housing Association)

*Would you object to some of the housing being Social Housing?

Yes No

Comment

11

*9. Do you have any ideas to put forward or any other questions to ask?

Yes No

Comment

*What is your Post Code?

Please come along to our Consultation Evening on the 1 st December where you can view our vision for the Stevensons Site and discuss with them with our Architect and Engineer, who will be happy to answer your questions.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE ANY HELP WITH COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE, OR WOULD LIKE IT IN A LARGER PRINT PLEASE CONTACT US (contact details below)

Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire.

You can POST your questionnaires at-

Woodlands, Sawmills; 9, Riversdale; 5, Hawkins Drive or The Canal Inn, Bullbridge (In the box provided)

Or

Bring it along to the consultation evening

Or

Fill in and send electronically on www.cribderbyshire.org , clicking on “Crib Questionnaire” on the Amber Navigation bar.

12

Postcodes of respondents

Each respondent was asked to supply their postcode. We hoped that this would ensure that we were capturing the views of those most affected by any development of the Stevensons Site. We posted to 350 houses in the immediate area and hoped for a 20% return as a viable percentage. We did achieve the 70+ responses needed though some of these were outside the area and have been marked “*” (mostly electronic replies) While these respondent’s views are valid and important to us we have highlighted that the respondents were not from the immediate area and therefore less affected by the development.

Each respondent has been given a number so that they could be identified as an individual respondent while preserving anonymity. The questionnaires received electronically are identified by the letter “e” after the number and, as with the paper replies are numbered in the order received.

Paper responses

1. DE56 2JS; 2.DE56 2JS; 3. DE56 2JQ; 4. DE4 5BJ; 5. DE4 5BJ; 6.DE56 2JQ

7. DE56 2JN; 8. DE56 2JQ 9. DE56 2JQ; 10. DE56 2AX; 11. DE56 2JQ;

12. DE56 2EU; 13. DE56 2JP; 14. DE56 2EW; 15. DE56 2JN; 16. DE56 2JB;

17. DE56 2JQ; 18. DE56 2ES; 19. DE56 2EU; 20. DE56 2ES; 21. DE56 2JL;

22. DE56 2JL; 23. DE56 2JR; 24. DE56 2JQ; 25. DE56 2JN; 26. DE56 2JN;

27. DE56 2JQ; 28. DE56 2JQ; 29. DE56 2JL; 30. DE56 2AX; 31. DE56 2EZ;

32. DE56 2JQ; 33. DE56 2FD; 34. DE56 2EW 35. DE56 2EW; 36. DE56 2EW;

37. DE56 2FB.

Electronic Responses

1e. DE56 2EU; 2e. ?; 3e. DE56 2JQ; 4e. DE56 2GTN; 5e. DE56 2HA;

6e. DE55 7PL; 7e. DE56 2JP; 8e. DE56 2FL; 9e. DE56 2EU; 10e. DE56 2JP;

11e. S32 5QX*; 12e.DE56 0GY; 13e. NG1 66FD*; 14ePE30 4XF*; 15e. S45 9DR*;

16e. DE56 2TP; 18e.DE56 2AL; 19e. DE56 2JB; 20e.DE56 2FL;21e. DE56 2FB;

22e. DE4 5BW*; 23e. DE4 5BJ*; 24e. DE56 2JB; 25e. DE56 2EW;26e. DE56 2EU;

27e. DE56 2JP; 28e. DE56 2EW; 29e. DE56 2HU; 30e. DE56 2FB;31e. NG5 3EY*:

32e. DE56 2JB; 33e. DE56 ???; 34e.DE56 2FJ; 35e. DE56 2EW;36e. DE4 5DY*;

37e. DE56 2HA; 38e. NG1 DE56 2FB; 40e.DE56 2FD; 41e.NG16 5EH*

13

14

The results

For each question…….

The Question Number

The Question as written in the questionnaire

A statement by CRIB about each Question

The number of respondents and their response to the question, both electronically and non- electronically.

A chart demonstrating the breakdown of responses.

Verbatim comments received from respondents to that question.

15

Question 1

"CRIB wants to see the Cromford canal reinstated through the Stevensons Site". Do you Agree with this idea?"

This question is central to the campaign. CRIB have been made aware that the reinstatement of the canal AFTER the development is completed would be virtually impossible. This has led CRIB to think creatively, with the support of an architect and an engineer for ways to fund the rein- statement. Looking at the site anew we have ensured that other matters of interest to the community are considered and that The Ripley Neighbourhood Plan be referenced too.

Non-electronic Electronic total Strongly Agree 29 34 63 Agree 7 5 12 Disagree 1 0 1 Strongly Disa- gree 0 1 1 Don’t know 0 1 1 Total 37 41 78

16

Comments received for Question 1.

“CRIB wants to see the Cromford canal reinstated through the Stevensons Site – Do you agree with this idea?”

Copied verbatim. Numbers in brackets with each comment indicate the number given to each responder. Numbers with ”e” affixed denote electronic responses.

“ The canal reinstated would be a great asset to homeowners, community and wildlife” (4)

“ Given the successes elsewhere in restoring and reopening canals it shows what can be done and what economic and environmental benefits are bought to the area” (5)

“ The canal would be lovely for wildlife and walking” (9)

“ I strongly agree with the reinstatement of the canal in the hope that the whole of the Cromford Canal will be reinstated for future generations to enjoy. A good piece of local history” (10)

“ As part of the local heritage it would be wonderful” (12)

“Would enhance area when established, possibly even stocking with fish (fishing clubs etc) (14)

“It would be an ideal time to incorporate the canal into future plans. If it goes, it goes forever!” (15)

“ The canal should be put back to how it was, to bring back the heritage” (24)

“Reinstatement of the canal is achievable – the Chesterfield Canal is progressing well” (25)

“ This is achievable” (26)

“Would like to see the reinstatement of a valuable part of Sawmills/Bullbridge history reinstated, which will be of value to the housing/occupants and local nature” (30)

“ Will add to the history and the attractiveness of the site” (31)

“ Agree, but not at the cost of building more, lower cost housing” (3e)

“ A restored canal would benefit both existing community and new residents” (5e)

“ Keep our heritage, tourism is the future” (16e)

“ This would perhaps provide the incentive to link up with Ambergate and Bullbridge” (17e)

“ It would bring more wildlife to the local area, attracting more tourism” (28e)

“I think the best you will get is the canal area not to be built upon. Have you already got funding to reinstate the canal yourself?? No, didn’t think so. So who is going to pay? The developer?? Complete fantasy – spend your time on something achievable.” (32e)

17

“ The restoration of the canal is misleadingly wrapped up with the need for more affordable housing. The two are separate issues. Those leaden (sic) on the canal restoration are piggy backing on the populist view of affordable housing” (33e)

“ I have lived in this area as a small child and as I grew up spent much time on the canal. As a teenage the canal through Stevensons site was taken away from the residents of Bullbridge. I hold the councils at the time responsible for this despicable act. As a result, generations have grown up without the pleasure of strolling along the canal like I did as a youngster. I strongly believe that any local political body in this county should insist that the canal is reinstated” 34e)

“ A restored canal would benefit both existing community and new residents” (37e)

18

Question 2

CRIB would like to see more homes for existing members of our community. That is, older and disabled people and first time buyers"

The reason for this question is two-fold - This question honours the concerns of the local civic society - The Bullbridge and Sawmills Area Civic Society (BASA) who have shown concern with regards the lack of affordable and accessa- ble housing shown in the previous plans submitted for this site. They would like to see more affordable homes and homes for older residents and those with disabilities, who currently must move out of the area for accessable housing.

None of t he organisations involved in CRIB currently have the financial resources to restore the canal without outside help. It is a well documented fact that canal side developments see a rise in property values, particularly close to the water itself. CRIB's Architect believes that the build- ing of higher density, high quality housing would similarly increase the profit for developers. CRIB seeks to find a developer who is prepared to use uplift in property values to fund restora- tion. While the original scheme would not see sufficient uplift to make the reinstatement finan- cially viable, CRIBs alternative proposals do – and still provide an increased profit margin to de- velopers.

Non-electronic Electronic total Strongly Agree 32 29 61 Agree 4 10 14 Disagree 1 0 1 Strongly Disagree 0 2 2 Don’t know 0 0 0 Total 37 41 78

19

Comments received for Question 2

“CRIB would like to see more homes for existing members of our community, including older and disable people and first time buyers”

“ Especially for older people who have to leave the area for level access housing” (11)

“ We have been looking for over a year now for my mother to move around here so we can offer support. Have found nothing in her budget” (18)

“ A very good idea” (20)

“ If these houses are built the problem is will they really be affordable” (24)

“ It would be good If houses of affordable price could be available for younger people” 25)

“ An essential part of the future plan” (15)

“ Provision for local old and young is an important issue” (12)

“ As a pensioner in a 3 bedroom family home I am looking towards a bungalow on an interesting site and a variety of ages/house types in the locality” (10)

“ This is the best idea keeping community spirit” (9)

“ Mixed housing with property (.….?) In a range including the needs of first time buyers, with provision for elderly and disabled people would contribute to the vitality of the area “ (4)

“ How could you guarantee this?” (29)

“ Definitely need affordable housing for all and single storey housing for disabled and elderly who have to leave the area in which many have grown up, then bus services might be feasible to keep running “ (26)

“ As the community ages the need for housing to encompass the elderly needs on a social, finaqncial and disability level will be needed. This would also free up the family homes to local young families in the area” (30)

“ Needs to be a community not a commuter estate” (31)

“ This will never happen!” (35)

“ The location and public transport services are not suitable to support disabled and older people” (3e)

“ A retirement/ assisted living complex series of homes would be idea” (17e)

“ Long term residents are being forced out by housing prices” (28e)

20

“ The developer wants to make money and they don’t do it by building cheap starter homes – they don’t really like having to put in starter homes in developments but they are forced to by planning policy. The community does not determine planning policy. Everyone moaned about the extra traffic original development would generate and this proposal would increase the traffic on this congested road further” (32e)

“ More homes as you describe are needed but see answer to question 1. Considerable more houses on the site will lead to increased traffic congestion in the area. More homes does not always lead to a better environment for those living in them. 71 more homes does mean greater overcrowding even if it is the same footprint. Older people and disabled people and first time buyers deserve more than to be crammed in o crowded sites. It’s the developer’s profits that need to be challenged. Quality housing is also needed in the area.” (33e)

“ Definitely that should be a starting point” (40e)

21

Question 3

“ The reinstatement of the canal through Stevensons SiteSite could incur a considerable cost to the developer. This cost could be met by the building of more, lower cost housing. Are you in agreement with the construction of more lower cost housing to enable the canal to be restored?"

As sta ted, it is clear that the reinstatement of the canal throughout the site would incur a con- siderable cost, in excess of one million pounds. The architect supporting CRIB believes that more housing, that does not compromise on quality, could meet this cost. This housing would be on a similar footprint to those 3/4 bedroom housed suggested in the current developer's plan. The suggestion is not that the units should be predominantly of one kind or another, but of mixed design that reflects the needs of the community, preferably clustered into community units, with houses along the canal at a higher premium. CRIB understands residents’ concern about the possible increase in traffic from the site. CRIB understands that the overall number of vehicles from the site is likely to be the same when the focus is on first time buyers and the elderly, who have less people and therefore cars per household. Furthermore, if more of the vehicles belong to retired people and part-time workers the traffic profile from the development would differ from the original proposal, as a reduced percentage would be commuting at a typical rush hour. Non-electronic Electronic total Strongly Agree 26 23 49 Agree 4 10 14 Disagree 3 2 5 Strongly Disagree 1 5 6 Don’t know 3 1 4 Total 37 41 78

22

Comments from question 3

“The reinstatement of the canal through the Stevensons Site could incur a considerable cost to the developer. This cost could be met by the building of more lower cost housing. Are you in agreement with the construction of more lower cost housing to enable the canal to be restored?

“ Building more affordable homes would be desirable in this area” (4)

“ A worthwhile project” (9)

“ Lower cost houses are a necessity for young people, families and the elderly who cannot afford high mortgages. The local area is swamped with 4/5 bed houses at a high cost “ (10)

“ If sensitively done and buildings of good quality” (11)

“ Low cost and environmentally friendly building is most essential” (15)

“ As previous question” (18)

“ Lower cost housing is the only way to go. High expensive housing does not help young people to get on the housing ladder” (22)

“ Only if these houses are affordable” (24)

“ George Jones’ proposal would enable this to be done profitably” (25)

“ More housing, more people, greater strain on existing infrastructure which is creaking already” (29)

“ A lot of younger people need housing. A lot of elderly people need housing they can afford that is accessible. Their family homes do not allow them to buy the bungalows that are usually about £50,000 more than a family 3 bed house” (30)

“Very difficult to get on the housing ladder in an area of low wages” (31)

“ A retirement/ assisted living complex series of homes would be ideal” (17e)

“ The developer wants to make as much money as possible, with the least risk. Canal = risk. They build houses not canals. Ask for the line of the canal not to be built over, forget everything else and you might achieve something” (32e)

“ As above” (33e)

“ Flooding the area with too much low cost housing is probably not the best way to generate the cost of reinstatement. Easily saleable higher cost housing adjacent to the canal or with views to the river is best option, with some lower cost housing built centrally on site and on the old car park.” (34e)

“ Affordable housing is a must” (40e)

23

Question 4

"CRIB believes that the old Malthouse on Bullbridge Hill should be preserved and used as a community building - Do you agree?"

The old Malthouse, which lies within the Stevensons Site is a significant building which is cur- rently being researched with a view to a submission for listing. The building lies within metres of several listed buildings and structures of historical significance. CRIB and the local Civic Society, BASA, believe that the heritage of this area is important, not the least because of its proximity to the Derwent Valley Area World Heritage Site. If the building were used as a community build- ing it would in no way replace the perfectly adequate village Hall at Sawmills. Local residents have suggested that the old Malthouse could be used as a satellite room for the local surgeries, a room to showcase the heritage, including the canal and the Derwent Valley Corridor. In the first instance CRIB would like to ensure that developers recognize the significance of this build- ing, as consideration for the future of this building must be made prior to the development.

Non-electronic Electronic total Strongly Agree 25 28 53 Agree 7 12 19 Disagree 0 1 1 Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 Don’t know 5 0 5 Total 37 41 78

24

Comments received for question 4.

“CRIB believes that the old Malthouse on Bullbridge Hill should be preserved and used as a Community Building”

“Community building in Sawmills so why another?” (1)

“Perhaps could be used as a doctor’s surgery (or nurse for bloods)” (8)

“Would there be two public buildings. No.1 being the village hall. (9)

“Good idea to keep community together and give support/ activities for all ages” (10)

“ Would be wonderful!” (11)

“Provision of community premises is an important issue” (12)

“ Community building , great idea to bring community residents together” (14)

“ YES MOST DEFINITLY. An ideal community building with the benefit of a large car park” (15)

“ Unfortunately around we see buildings of historical interest being allowed to go to ruin. 100% behind any preservation” (18)

“ Youth club, luncheon club etc” (19)

“ A community building is a way to meet new friends, neighbours. It is a great way to help people have contact and not feel isolated” (22)

“ The problem which might occur having a community building is that it may attract youngsters to the area” (24)

“ Would Sawmills Village Hall then be redundant?” (25)

” The need for any community is to socialise. Also to provide groups for the young. Eg Playschool, after school activities. And for the elderly to retrain their skills by social activity” (30)

“ Lovely old building, so good to see it put to good use” (31)

“ I would also like to see it (part used) as a Heritage Centre for our area” (35)

“ The sooner the better” (17e)

“ Bullbridge needs a community building to bring everyone together” (28e)

“ Nice idea, but will cost the developer. Also who pays for the upkeep, insurance etc?” (32e)

“ If this was possible it would be a real asset for the community” (40e)

25

QQQuestion 5

"CRIB would like to see provision made for wildlife on the site. Do you agree with this idea?"

The Stevensons Site is unique and offers sev eral opportunities to encourage and benefit wildlife. Should the canal be reinstated through the site the easement for the main water pipes running through the site north to south the protected area for the canal and the floodplain are all areas that the developer cannot build hous- es. CRIB seeks to ensure that these areas are effectively used to enhance the biodi- versity on the site, rather than being ignored or buried underneath Tarmac.

Non-electronic Electronic total Strongly Agree 27 24 51 Agree 6 14 20 Disagree 2 1 3 Strongly Disagree 0 1 1 Don’t know 2 1 3 Total 37 41 78

26

Comments for question 5

“ CRIB would like to see provision for wildlife on the site”

“ Reinstating the canal would encourage wildlife and enrich the lives of residents and community members”. (4)

“ Wildlife need protecting, most will disappear because of habitat “ (9)

“ A necessity to link the canal from Ambergate to Cromford which is a SSSI” (10)

“ Very Important” (11)

“ Always preserve wildlife where possible” (14)

“ Yes!” (15)

“ We need to encourage wildlife not discourage. We will need plenty of trees, bushes and wild flowers” (24)

“ Wildlife reinstatement on the old site would greatly enhance living on the new estate, giving education to the young and enjoyment/relaxation activity to all” (30)

“ There is a lot of wildlife in the area so good to encourage and preserve it” (31)

“ Agree but not alongside low cost housing” (3e)

“Hopefully nature will follow the refurbishment of the canal” (19e)

“ Look around us – we are not an inner city where provision like this is a good idea – we live in a rural environment. This is nonsense. Rather than having a list of things that are never going to happen, focus on one thing otherwise you will get nothing from the developers. All things like this mean to a developer is increased spend, reduced housing density, less income and hence less profit. You are wasting your time” (32e)

“ Not if, again this means restoring the canal at the cost of overcrowding the site.” (33e)

“This is easily done with canal reinstatement and enhancement of the river bank” (34e)

27

Question 6:

“CRIB believes that the developers should consider environmental issues, such as, for example, low carbon building, rainwater catchment, hydroelectric power generated by the canal, solar panels and green spaces. Do you agree?”

The site offers many opportunities to build in an environmentally sensitive way. The topography of the site is quite special as it is south-facing, with a river as its southerly boundary and wooded hills to the north. The reinstatement of the canal would further enrich these features with the possibility of the potential for hydro-electric power to be generated by the river flow or the canal overflow to the river. Hydro thermal energy could also be recovered from the canal for community heating.

Non electronic Electronic total Strongly Agree 25 24 49 Agree 9 10 19 Disagree 0 3 3 Strongly Disagree 0 1 1 Don’t know 3 3 6 Total 37 41 78

28

CommCommentsents received from Question 6

“ CRIB believes that the developers should consider environmental issue, such as for example, low carbon building, rainwater catchment, hydroelectric power generated by the canal, solar panels and green spaces. Do you agree?”

“ Care taken in the design of the housing in the development of the site would give scope to improve the environment by reducing the carbon footprint” (4)

“ Don’t understand how you can generate hydroelectric power when water is standing (No flow)” (7)

“ Monitoring needs to take place” (9)

“ Looking towards the future, this will help the environment long term” (10)

“ Solar panels on all buildings” (11)

“ You wont get much hydroelectric power off the canal” (13)

“ This surely is the future!” (15)

“ The site is ideal to maximise solar panels production of electricity, being south facing” (25)

“ How would power be generated by a canal? Solar panels will work well in this s. facing position”(26)

“ Any new build should consider the long term effects on the environment and ensure the longevity of environment” (30)

“ Makes homes more attractive to buyers as running costs are lower” (31)

“ Should be mandatory for all new buildings” (17e)

“ Yes, we all “believe” the sentiment of that statement. But until planning policy or law states they need to be supplied CRIB are wasting their time with this. The developers want to make money. They will do the I minimum required to get the development through planning with or without the support of the locals - planning policy only deals with a very few select items and “Beliefs” and community “would like” have zero influence over this. Unfortunately you are again wasting your time.” (32e)

“ With the exception of the canal bit” (33e)” I’m not sure how you could generate hydroectric power from the canal, but I’m sure the river could provide this” (34e)

29

Question 7:

“CRIB believes that the reinstatement of the Cromford canal throughout our area will help with regeneration and increase opportunities for tourism and jobs. Do you share this idea?”

Many jobs have been lost in our area in the past few years, with the closure of the Brickworks at Riversdale, Johnson and Nephew in Ambergate and Stevensons itself. This has meant that most residents must travel outside the area for employment. Shops and post offices have closed and many residents feel that it is a forgotten area of the Amber Valley. The restoration of the canal would help to increase employment opportunities. The importance of a link to Ripley (at Hammersmith) to the east and the World Heritage Site to the west at Ambergate is clear, with both areas benefitting from the tourism.

Non electronic Electronic Strongly Agree 20 28 48 Agree 11 6 17 Disagree 2 4 6 Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 Don’t know 4 3 7 Total 37 41 78

30

Comments from Question 7.

“ CRIB believes that the reinstatement of the Cromford canal throughout our area will help with regeneration and increase opportunities for tourism and jobs”

“ Not certain this will happen” (1)

“ The Cromford canal is a magnet for tourists and any extension will add to the pull of the area and the prosperity of all” (4)

“ It would be tragic if the development were to be the death knell of ever opening the canal” (5)

“ Bikers and hikers welcome” (9)

“ I enjoy walking the canal from Ambergate to Cromford. This development would enhance my enjoyment and the many people I meet on my walks” (10)

“ We have lost many jobs in the area” (11)

“ What more has one more mile of canal to offer tourism?” (13)

“ Yes”(15)

“ The existing canal is wonderful to walk along” (18)

“ As the canal is developed tourism opportunities will increase along with potential jobs.’ (25)

‘This will only work if there are things for the tourists to do. If the canal ever gets reinstated unless there is a marina the boats will sail through without stopping and walkers might stop off at the pub! There are walkers about already’ (29)

‘Many people use the Cromford canal for relaxation. Increasing its length can only give more variation and enjoyment to locals and visitors ‘ (30)

‘Possibly’(3e)

‘ To make this happen the link to Ambergate is essential and a walking path up the old track/tramway to Crich. The historical link to the Derwent Valley needs to be established’ (17e)

‘ Houses have already been built on the old canal. The viaduct has been removed, Lockwoods have an HGV entrance that no amount of civil engineering can sort out. It’s never going to happen due to the mistakes made by our councillors over the years. I’d put effort into other things that might stand a chance of being done’ (32e)

‘I am without doubt it would’ (34e)

31

Question 8:

“It is possible that a small part of the site could be used for Social Housing (Housing Association) Would you object to some of the housing being Social Housing?”

It is possible ( though not probable under the present climate) that a developer may consider building some affordable social housing/shared ownership with a housing association on part of the site. CRIB feels that while the possibility is remote, residents who received the questionnaire might have answered differently if this situation arose post - consultation. It would be naive to think that whatever CRIB's views many people would not be reluctant to welcome Social Housing to the area. CRIB believes that with a design that suggests mixed housing in groups the "ghetto" scenario that concerns people could be avoided. CRIB's is committed to finding a creative way to fund the reinstatement of the canal, while improving the quality of the estate, but in no way sees itself as a champion for Social Housing nor that it is giving the Council a mandate to build many houses of poor quality that won't benefit the residents of the area.

Non electronic Electronic total Yes 9 8 17 No 28 27 55 Total 37 35 72 .

32

...Comments.Comments from Question 8

“ It is possible that a small part of the site could be used for Social Housing (Housing Association) – Would you object to some of the housing being Social Housing?”

“For people in this area of Amber valley only” (1)

“ A mixed community is always preferable to uniform income households. There is a great need locally for Social Housing” (4)19)

“ Not keen on this idea!” (9)

“ All incomes should be considered” (10)

“ Especially if ring-fenced to local people” (11)

“ Depends on how many, probably reject idea” (13)

“ More affordable and Social Housing needed across the country” (14)

“ Unless the social housing were allocated to local residents only” (18)

“ One or two bedroom houses for folk to downsize to” (19)

“ Retirement bungalows for local Ambergate people” (20)

“ It is a good way for all to get on the housing ladder. Social Housing is needed desperately” (22)

“ We live ina small quiet neighbourhood and it should stay this way. Social Housing could bring problem families to the site” (24)

“ Get on with it” (25)

“ All people should be welcome in the area what social, ethnic or financial situation” (30)

“ Not sure what this is. Council Housing?” (37)

“ I would not object but not sure which is correct box” (5e)

“ Social Housing should be part of the development” (7e)

“ I feel it is important that some should be Social Housing” (9e)” Social Housing should be part of the development” (10e)

“ Would be good for disabled or elderly housing” (15e)

“ Would not object” (19e)

‘ Not sure if disagree or agree means I would object. Poorly written question. But as for answer No I would not object” (22e) response before question altered to be answered by “yes” or “no”.

33

“ Social Housing brings Social Problems” (27e)

“ I don’t object to Social Housing but as it is usually people with very low incomes that require these properties wouldn’t these people be better off living in an area that can provide all amenities within easy reach” (34e)

“ I would not object” (37e)

34

.Question 9:

”Do you have any ideas to put forward or any other questions to ask?”

CRIB values the comments recorded throughout this questionnaire, but was mindful that we may not have always asked the right questions! This question gives respondents opportunity to put this right.

Non electronic Electronic Consolidated Yes 19 8 27 No 18 27 45 Total 37 35 72

.

35

Comments from Question 9

‘ Do you have any ideas to put forward or any other questions to ask?”

“ Building more houses in this area means people have to travel more distance to find work by car as no public transport after about 5.30 pm, non on Sunday. already overcrowded at present.” (1)

“ Already road congestion. What about shopping facilities. Also bus services for residents at the moment it is inadequate “ (2)

” Explore community led housing – the Association of CWT ( unable to read this) has a website as does Community Land Trusts Association which is one variant” (5)

“ Will I get my bungalow before I am too old to enjoy it?!” (10)

“ Consideration of train noise due to the proximity of the line. Trains run all night” (12)

“ Footpath is a good idea but could follow the river for a lot less cost” (13)

“ Infrastructure – Transport, amenities, i.e doctor’s surgery, health clinic, school, shop etc.” (15)

“ Who is going to look after the canal when it is reinstated?” (17e)

“ When would the building start?” (20)

“ Everything seems to be covered very well” (22)

“ It is possible that ideas and questions will be asked when developers publish up-to-date plans” (28)

“ Would like this to happen before I am too old to move into one of the elderly bungalows/flats” (30)

“ How is canal linked to housing needs?” (32)

“ Canal linked with a walking and cycling route would be excellent “ (36)

“ Make sure the canal route is saved for the future please!” (37)

“ Thank you for all of your work to improve this historical area!” (4e)

“ I have reservations regarding traffic” (19e)

“ Village shop” (28e)

“ Please just concentrate on the one thing that is important to you – that the route of the canal is not built over” (32e)

“ Is this about the canal or the type of housing need? Separate the issues and show greater clarity” (33e)

36

“ With the past destruction of our canal and aqueduct I’m sure you all agree that our beloved area of Bullbridge and Sawmills has been greatly abused by past councils and commercial interests that probably profited a few more than it did the vast majority of this area. I now look forward towards the current and future authorities to put past wrongs right. Believe me without the reinstatement of the canal to build high density low cost housing will devastate our beloved hamlet.” (34e)

“ Any idea of any timescale for this project. My main concern would be not to price the project out of the developers hands because whatever something urgently wants doing with the site ASAP”(40e)

37

38

Summary

The returned results have been very encouraging, with by far the majority showing strong support for CRIB’s aim to reinstate the Cromford Canal. Many respondents regard the canal with affection and consider its reinstatement as essential for the area.

It was gratifying that that respondents were engaged enough to make many comments. Every comment is important, so each one has been printed in full and any questions answered within this document.

Many responders were concerned about the impact of CRIB’s vision on the local infrastructure, believing that public transport was inadequate and that there was a possible increase in traffic if more houses were built. CRIB believes that this is very real concern, but understands that less 3/4/5 bedroomed houses and more 1/2 bedroom properties and more retired owners will in fact mean less cars, which also brings a different traffic profile, travelling outside of a typical rush hour. With regards to public transport CRIB hopes that current provision would not be a stumbling block as any greater demand increases potential for an increased service.

Several responders felt that the area had been let down by councillors and planners in the past as the line of the canal has been compromised in several places and structures of historic interest had not been valued. These responders felt that this was an opportunity to “get it right” in this instance. The promotion of the reinstatement of the canal and surrounding areas of historic interest and links to the World Heritage Site was appreciated as an opportunity to promote tourism in the area. The possibility of saving the Malthouse was welcomed by many. Concern was raised that this might be promoted instead as an alternative to Sawmills Village Hall, something CRIB, as an organisation that uses and appreciates the hall, would not agree with.

CRIB felt it was important to raise the question of Social Housing. Unfortunately, the question was poorly worded on the website, leaving early responders confused. This was quickly altered once CRIB was made aware of this and CRIB has scrutinised the first few answers to ensure the correct views were noted. Several people were unsure of the meaning of the term “Social Housing”. The building of more, lower cost housing will enable the developer to afford the reinstate the canal. However CRIB does not see it as a way for Amber Valley to just build more houses and will oppose any change to the current plan that doesn’t reinstate the canal and/or enhance the community (but are not opposed in principle to the existing proposals)

A high percentage of responders looked favourably on CRIB’s views on the promotion of environmentally friendly design and promotion of wildlife areas.

While some felt that CRIB’s vision was not possible many hoped and believed it WAS possible and that it was important that CRIB pressed for it to happen for the good of the

39 area. CRIB was made aware of the affection that many local people had for the Cromford Canal and the real sense of sadness at the “abuse of our beloved area of Bullbridge and Sawmills” holding “and “ I strongly believe that any political body in this county should insist that the canal be reinstated” (respondent No.34e)

The consultation was solely in reference to the stretch of canal through the Stevensons site. On reflection, a little could have been written about the stretches of canal adjacent to the development as reference was made to these by some respondents. Our Engineer states-

“The Friends of Cromford Canal are seeking to restore the whole length of canal. Their engineers are steadily developing concept designs for all of the obstacles” on the canal. Contrary to popular belief, there is not an obstacle on the canal that cannot be overcome

“Immediately adjacent to the site, a new aqueduct will be required over the road and the railway. Early discussions have been held with Network Rail and there is sufficient headroom to install an aqueduct. Where houses are built on the canal they will be bypassed.

At Lockwoods, the canal will need to cross the entrance to the yard. There is sufficient clearance, potentially with some minor profiling of the access road, to pass under the entrance at the end of the bridge in a new cut and cover culvert”

There were so many interesting, supportive and challenging comments from respondents that we cannot highlight them all in this document. The reader is directed to the comments copied verbatim at the end of each question. These comments will advise CRIB in it’s campaign.

CRIB is grateful for the interest taken in the Consultation and wishes to thank all those who have taken part,

40

What happens next?

We believe that it is important to recognise and respond to residents in the first instance. A letter of thanks will go out to the 350 homes with a resume of the Consultation process and a precise of the results. The full results i.e with ALL comments and this entire document will be made available on-line or as a printed document on request. (it not being practical to print and post 350 copies) We will take the opportunity to answer any questions asked and recognise any ideas, suggestions or misunderstandings.

When the letters have been posted we will approach Planning for a meeting to present and discuss this document.

“It would be tragic if the development were the death knell of ever opening the canal” (respondent No. 5)

G.H. March 2017

41