Nigel Mills M.P. 11 HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON SWIA OAA Cllr J Anderson Chair of Planning - Amber Valley Borough Council Town Hall Market Place Ripley DES 3BT 13 November 2012 AVA 20111199 - Planning Board 19 November 2012 I am writing to set out my objections to the above application for a new Crematorium at Swanwick and to urge the members of the planning board to reject the application. In my opinion this application is clearly contrary to Policies EN1 and ENS of the Local Plan given that this land is Protected Open Space and is less than 200 yards from the nearest dwellings, the minimum distance required by law. There are some unfortunate factual errors in the Officers' Report which do not provide confidence in the quality of the analysis and the conclusions. This particular site actually merited its own planning policy in the Local Plan, namely ENS, which set out that this area of land "will be protected from built development to ensure maintenance of the settlements' separate identities". This proposal is clearly built development which I do not consider meets the exemptions set out in EN1 or ENS namely: ENS • This is not an environmental improvement, it is clearly detrimental to the local environment; • A crematorium is not a recreational facility; • Public access will not be improved - access will only be for limited hours and generally when attending a funeral-I cannot see that this is what the Council meant by public access. EN1 In assessing policy EN11 consider it important to bear in mind the wording at the preceding paragraph 6.7, namely: "Careful control therefore needs to be exercised over development proposals outside the built framework of settlements, which will maintain the openness of the countryside, whilst recognising the need to accommodate development which is necessary to sustain the rural economy, or which is otherwise essential within a countryside location. 11 The Officers' recommendation to approve relies on a crematorium being essential in a countryside location and thus overriding the presumption against. I cannot see that EN1 (c) ("will improve the viability, accessibility or community value of existing services and facilities in settlements remote from service centres provided by the towns and larger villages") can apply as this will not improve an existing service/facility and Swanwick itself is a "larger village". Equally I cannot imagine that a Member of Parliament for Amber Valley Hou e of Common : 020 7219 7233 Email: [email protected] Con tituency: 01773 744 341 crematorium would meet the definition of Community Facility for policy LC13 - to what use could the people of Swanwick put the crematorium? Legal Separation distance The 1902 Cremation Act does indeed set a minimum separation to the nearest house of 200 yards and to the nearest right of way of 50 yards as set out in the Officers' report. The Act however defines a Crematorium as including everything incidental or ancillary thereto (s2). The 1978 guidance referred to in the Officers' Report sets out that this includes "parts of the grounds used for the disposal of ashes". Looking at the plans these areas of the application seem clearly to be within 200 yards of the 2 houses nearest the site and within 50 yards of the road. I am not aware that consent has been obtained from the landowners. Notwithstanding this legal position, the fact is that this site is not in a secluded rural area, near to not only the houses, but also a service station, a busy factory and a fire station. I cannot see that this site meets the needs of a crematorium - indeed Para 4b sl ofthe Crematorium Act 1952 sets out: "That the crematorium is so sited that its use does not have any material effect on the immediate neighbourhood. 11 Given the level of objections, the local community clearly consider there will be a material effect. The report seems to support siting crematoria in very rural locations - this site does not meet that definition. Need for a Crematorium The question of the relevance of the need for a crematorium is disputed in the Officers' Report. Given the wording of ENl regarding "necessary within the countryside" I think it is a fair conclusion that the Crematorium could only meet this test if there was a need for a Crematorium in the area. There are some unfortunate factual errors on this issue in the report which should be corrected. There are not only 5 crematoria serving Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. In fact there are 7 namely: 1) Mark Eaton 2) Chesterfield 3) Bretby (South Derbyshire) 4) Mansfield 5) Nottingham 6) Bramcote 7) Sherwood Forest There are also several more that serve the population of Derbyshire, namely: 1) Stockport (serves part of High Peak) 2) Macclesfield (serves part of High Peak) 3) Hutcliffe Wood (Sheffield) This makes at least 10 crematoria serving the area. The report also comments that no neighbouring district of Amber Valley has a crematorium. In fact there are 3: 1) Mark Eaton - Derby - a very short distance from the Amber Valley boundary 2) Bramcote - Broxtowe 3) Bretby - South Derbyshire These factual errors in the report give me concern over the validity of the whole analysis and conclusions. I do not consider that the need for a crematorium in Swanwick has been demonstrated for the following reasons: i) The activity level for the proposed crematorium is only expected to hit the average for a single chapel crematorium in 2033 - two decades from now; ii) There is existing capacity at the nearby crematoria -I have never received a complaint about delays in obtaining a funeral date and there is no real data on this provided by the applicant or the Council's consultant. This was of course confirmed by the Scrutiny report in 2006. iii) I am aware, on a confidential basis, of another site in Amber Valley where an offer was made to the landowner to purchase land for the purposes of constructing a crematorium - this is not one of the sites set out in the report. In fact no sites outside Amber Valley seem to have been considered despite a large proportion of the putative catchment area being west of Amber Valley. This issue was considered in Trusthouse Forte Hotels Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1986) 53 P & CR 293 which showed that such consideration should be carried out. I doubt therefore that a thorough assessment of more suitable sites has been carried out. iv) I am also unsure where the "hope value" principle has come from -I do not recall it being in the Local Plan. I cannot see that the argument that other sites might be more expensive is a relevant planning consideration. v) The population of large areas of Amber Valley would not choose this crematorium given the much greater proximity/convenience of other crematoria, especially Mark Eaton. This is clearly shown by the map in the Tyms report (page 6). I am therefore not at all convinced that the Applicant can demonstrate that there is a need for a crematorium in this location. While it may be desirable for there to be another crematorium somewhere in Derbyshire, sites further west would seem far more suitable. Overall therefore I do not consider that the applicant has demonstrated that there are sufficient grounds to overturn the specific policy in the Local Plan protecting this site and therefore I would urge the planning board to reject it on that basis. Yours sincerely.