Appencix C Wragley Way Report to Development Control Committee

10/10/2006

Item 2.1

Reg. No. 9/2006/0070/M

Applicant: Agent: Hallam Land Management Limited Sigma Planning Strelley Hall Sigma House 6 Garden Street Strelley Tunbridge Wells Nottingham Kent NG86PE TN1 2XB

Proposal: Housing development roads and recreational open space on Land east of Lane and South of Wragley Way

Ward: Stenson

Valid Date: 18/01/2006

Reason for committee determination

Consideration of this application is complicated by a number of factors. These include the judicial review of the Council’s Planning Policy Position Statement published after the withdrawal of the emerging Replacement Local Plan, striking at the validity of the Council’s previous position on the proposal. More importantly, insufficient information has been submitted to determine it. This information is promised in time for the forthcoming inquiry into an appeal against non-determination. Pressure will be placed on the Council and the highway authorities to deal with this information right up to the inquiry and scant time will be allowed for public consultation. On this account, the decision of the Planning Inspectorate to allow the appeal to proceed is regrettable but the Council has no option but to respond. The purpose of the report is to seek the views of the Committee as to how it would wish to determine the application and/or what view to put to the forthcoming inquiry.

Site Description

The application site is a largely undeveloped area of countryside lying between the urban area of Derby to the north and the A50 trunk road to the south. The character of the area is one of open agricultural fields, mainly in arable use but with some pasture. The part of the site to the east of Deepdale Lane contains an existing farmstead (Ashlea Farm). Field

Page 1 of 15 boundaries are mainly hedgerows with some isolated trees. Overhead electricity pylons cross the site.

Proposal

The application is in outline for approximately 950 dwellings, accompanied by illustrative drawings, an Environmental Statement, a Sustainability Appraisal and a Planning Statement. Notably no Traffic Impact Assessment was submitted for consideration.

This information was sought through the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, along with ecological matters, but was not supplied. The applicant has indicated that the requisite information will be presented to the Planning Inspectorate by 24 October (four weeks before the inquiry date).

Access to the development would be from Wragley Way to the north, crossing land within Derby City and Deepdale Lane to the east. It is not proposed to provide access to Arleston Lane.

On site open space would be provided in the main beneath the overhead electricity lines and over the high-pressure gas main that runs through the site. Major open space would be sited within the City limits and is subject to a separate appeal against non-determination by Derby City Council.

Applicants’ supporting information

The applicant has provided substantial supporting information as referred to above. The summary of the planning statement is re-produced below:

7.1 The application site is in an area, to which countryside policies apply and where planning consent would not normally be granted for housing (Local Plan Environment Policy 1 and Housing Policy 2). However, the strategic need for housing and the absence of adequate sites within the existing built confines of settlements means that land outside settlements must be considered for housing. This is a significant material consideration.

7.2 The site adjoins and is well related to the urban area of Derby. It generally satisfies the locational and other criteria of the following policies:-

RSS8 - Policy 2 - Policy 5 - Policy 15

JSP - GDSP 1 - GDSP 2 - GDSP 3 - Housing Policy 4. Page 2 of 15

In the absence of adequate previously developed land in urban areas to meet the housing requirement, the application site is an urban extension which represents the next most sustainable option (PPG3, Paragraphs 30 and 67) in the search sequence.

7.3 It also meets JSP Housing Policy 17, which states that the housing provision should include sites on the periphery of Derby.

7.4 The Environmental Assessment submitted with this application demonstrates that there are no significant environmental impacts that would preclude the development of the site.

7.5 The site has well defined boundaries. The landscape impact is localised and the visual impact of the housing is capable of extensive mitigation. It will not be a prominent intrusion into the countryside.

7.6 There is no material loss of agricultural land of the best and most versatile quality.

7.7 There will be a loss of habitat but on balance the impact on ecological resources will be positive and bio-diversity and woodland cover will be enhanced.

7.8 The scheme will make good use of existing infrastructure.

7.9 No historic buildings or important archaeological or geomorphological resources will be compromised.

7.10 There is no general problem of flood risk and watercourses will be incorporated and enhanced in terms of their function and their ecological value.

7.11 Noise, air quality and water impacts are mainly neutral with some potential for positive improvement.

7.12 The development will provide adequate sports and recreation facilities and will also enhance current local deficiencies.

7.13 Whilst this is an outline planning application, there are no identifiable constraints upon the ability of the detailed proposals to:-

- provide at least 20% affordable and special needs housing;

- create a mixed community with a better mix in size, type and location of housing than is currently available;

Page 3 of 15 - make efficient use of land by providing a range density of - development in the range of 30 – 50 dwellings per hectare.

- produce a high quality of residential development incorporating best practice design principles as set out in guidance produced, inter alia, by the ODPM, DTLR, CABE and other interested bodies, including “By Design” and “Secure by Design”. The design of the landscaped and residential areas will be laid out in accordance with best practice guidance from, inter alia, English Nature, Sport , NPFA and ODPM.

7.14 The three most important advantages of the proposed development are its unrivalled potential to:-

i) create more sustainable patterns of development by building in ways which exploit and deliver accessibility by walking, cycling and public transport to jobs, education and health facilities, shopping, leisure and local services.

ii) build communities by integration with the existing community through the use, support and enhancement of services and facilities, which can be shared by existing and new residents. This extensive and mature local service base does not exist in such a convenient and comprehensive manner anywhere along the southern periphery of Derby. The Sinfin locality is therefore the optimum location for new development in South Derby.

iii) alleviate an existing local deficiency in the provision of recreational space.

7.15 Details of the high levels of sustainability offered by this site and the potential to reduce car dependence are set out in the Sustainability Appraisal prepared by DPDS Planning, which accompanies this application.

7.16 The rival sites being promoted at Boulton Moor and Willington Power Station are compared, in terms of their sustainability credentials, in the Alternative Site Analysis Report in the Environmental Assessment (Chapter 14 of Volume 2 and Chapter 10 of Volume 3). The conclusion of this analytical comparison is that the Wragley Way site demonstrates significantly greater sustainability credentials than the other two sites and therefore would be in greater conformity with National and Regional policy that seeks to direct new development to the most sustainable locations.

7.17 Assessing the three sites against the five criteria set out in Paragraph 31 of PPG3

Page 4 of 15 a. the availability of previously developed sites - Wragley Way and Boulton Moor are both greenfield sites. Willington Power Station is a previously developed site containing a proportion of open land. However, any advantage it gains from its status as being previously developed is negated by its isolated location, away from any major urban area and remote from existing facilities. Whilst the presumption that previously developed sites should be developed before greenfield sites is acknowledged, the Willington Power Station site performs so poorly in relation to the remaining criteria listed in Paragraph 31 as to preclude its use for housing before the Wragley Way site (PPG3, Paragraph 32). b. location and accessibility to jobs, shops and services by modes other than the car - the Sustainability Analysis and Alternative Site Analysis Report demonstrate the significant superiority of the Wragley Way site over its two rivals in this respect. Willington Power Station has very limited local services available in the village, most of which are outside easy walking distance. Bus services are infrequent and journey times long. The railway station is not within easy walking distance and the level of service is very limited. Residents will have little option other than to use their cars on routes utilising local rural roads. Boulton Moor is a residential add-on to an area that has limited existing local community facilities or other services. Bus services are available but will have to be substantially re-routed to provide bus stops within walking distance of all parts of the development. For many journeys the private car will be an attractive or essential alternative to walking, cycling or public transport. Indeed, the attractions to car users of easy access to the A6 and A50

were one of the primary reasons that residential development has been promoted at Boulton Moor in the past. Accessibility by private car was seen as an advantage. This is no longer the case in relation to current planning policy, which seeks to reduce the use of the private car rather than to promote the convenience of using a car. The Boulton Moor site therefore displays a serious disadvantage in that it will encourage the use of the private car and does not provide easy accessibility to services by walking or cycling. c. capacity of existing and potential infrastructure - both Boulton Moor and Willington Power Station sites will have to rely upon the provision of substantial new public transport, water and sewerage, other utilities and social infrastructure to provide for their development. The Wragley Way site on the other hand can benefit from capacity in the existing local infrastructure of the Sinfin neighbourhood. Reliance on existing infrastructure is preferable because it is a better use Page 5 of 15 of resources to take up existing capacity rather than to provide new capacity; there is more certainty of continuing provision and more opportunity to reinforce, enhance or upgrade to improve the facilities enjoyed by existing as well as new residents. For example, there is an excellent bus service along Wragley Way. The service does not need improving - at most a minor re-routing would be desirable. By observation it can be seen that the buses are not fully used at present. New development at Wragley Way will encourage greater use of an existing service and support its continuation. By contrast at Boulton Moor and Willington Power Station new bus services will have to be introduced solely to serve any new development and probably subsidised by it. In these circumstances there is a question about the adequacy of any subsidy to ensure the continuation of services in the future and the use of resources on new services, which will only benefit or are only justified by the new development. d. ability to build communities - both Boulton Moor and particularly Willington Power Station are likely to create self- contained communities because – unlike Wragley Way – there is no strong existing community base in the immediate locality. The Wragley Way site provides a much better opportunity for new residents to integrate with the existing local community through the combined use of existing facilities and the enhancement where there is a local deficiency - such as in playing fields where the Wragley Way proposal will add 8.8 hectares of playing fields to meet the needs of the new development and assist in addressing a local deficiency within the adjoining urban area. There is therefore significant potential at Wragley Way to build on the established community rather than to seek to create a new community. Urban extensions of this scale are not capable of providing a fully self-contained community and therefore local access to an established community is an important advantage. e. physical and environmental constraints - the Wragley Way site has no material physical or environmental constraints upon its development. This is demonstrated by the Environmental Assessment. The Boulton Moor proposal involves the loss of a high proportion of best and most

versatile agricultural land, the use of Green Belt land and is viewed from the Green Belt. It displays landscape, ecological, archaeological and geo-morphological sensitivities with material impact. Willington Power Station site also displays geological and landscape sensitivities. Most importantly the site is at risk of flooding from the River Trent, which lies in the close vicinity, and the local drainage system.

Page 6 of 15 7.18 Arising from the above appraisal the Wragley Way site demonstrates clear advantages over the other two sites in a number of respects. The brownfield advantage of Willington Power Station is neutralised by its poor sustainability credentials and performance against the rest of the Paragraph 31 criteria.

Planning History

The site was promoted by the applicant, as a suggested housing allocation, through the Local Plan Inquiry in 2003.

Responses to Consultations

Barrow on Trent Parish Council raises the following objections:

a) Brownfield sites should be considered before this application, to accord with government policy. b) Traffic would have a significant effect on the A5132 through Barrow to the Swarkestone junction. c) Deepdale Lane has been subject to several accidents and is not suitable for any increase in traffic. d) The road systems around the site are inadequate for the cars generated by the proposal. A site nearer to Willington and access to the A38 and A50 should be explored. e) There are Iron Age remains that should be explored further. f) Whilst wildlife has declined, a significant amount remains. g) 950 additional houses would swamp Barrow in terms of parish representation. h) Crime levels in the area are higher and there would be additional pressures on the police. i) The fields in the locality are subject to regular flooding. j) There could be increased risk of flood to Barrow. k) Recent improvements to the sewerage system would be negated. l) The environmental report is weighted in favour of the developer. An opposing view could be taken. m) has not been considered in the report. n) It is important to retain a barrier of green fields between Derby and South .

Stenson Fields Parish Council objects as follows:

a) The transport infrastructure is inadequate to cope with the increased traffic. Traffic difficulties already occur in the lanes to the south, as well as on the single width rail crossing into Littleover and Grampian Way. These existing problems would be made worse.

b) No additional facilities are proposed to deal with the increased population. Existing facilities are not adequate, in particular with regard to education and health care provision. Page 7 of 15 c) The viability of alternative sites, in accordance with PPG3, has not been properly evaluated or assessed. d) Buildings in excess of 2 storeys would be out of keeping with the local area. e) Construction work would have adverse impact on residents over many years. f) There could be drainage and flooding problems. g) There would be loss of wildlife and productive farmland. h) The development would be close to the Parish Millennium Wood project and affects a regionally Important Geological Site.

The County Planning Authority has analysed the application in the light of other major residential applications to the south of Derby (9/2005/0611 – Boulton Moor, 9/2005/1432 – Willington Power Station, 9/2006/0075 – Arleston Lane, 9/2006/0750 – Highfields Farm Findern, 9/2006/0775 – Highfields Farm Findern, 9/2006/0885 – Calder Industries Willington). It considers that none of the planning applications currently under consideration can be determined in isolation. Each of the planning applications, both individually and cumulatively, is likely to have wide ranging implications and impacts on housing provision policy, the local highway network and educational provision in both District and the City of Derby. For this reason it is considered that a conjoined planning inquiry would be the most appropriate way forward to determine these planning applications.

Derby City Council considers that a conjoined enquiry is necessary to assess all current applications against relevant policies and criteria. It comments that the housing trajectory in the Derby 2005 Annual Monitoring Report indicates that the City’s Structure Plan requirement to 2011 could potentially be exceeded by 1400 dwellings. Much of this development is likely to be on brownfield land. The healthy availability of housing land within the City boundary reduces the urgency for land to be released in the short term in South Derbyshire. Moreover, in line with RSS Policy 19, it will be important to avoid significant over provision of greenfield land for housing on the Derby periphery. Overprovision could undermine the regeneration of brownfield housing sites in the City, including those being promoted by Derby Cityscape URC within the City Centre. The City Council comments that the RSS Review is about to be published for consultation. The guidance proposes annual build rates of 700 dwellings p.a. in Derby City and 255 in South Derbyshire as ‘sustainable urban extensions’. However it considers that these average annual rates are not expected to be evenly distributed over the plan period. In the earlier years the City Council expects build rates to be heavily weighted towards the City, reflecting the healthy short/medium term land supply referred to above and City Centre opportunities.

The City Council considers that the development would have a serious impact on traffic flows in the local area and also on the Sinfin Lane and Stenson Road radial routes into Derby. On the issues of education, Page 8 of 15 affordable housing, open space, nature conservation and community facilities, the City Council makes recommendations that could be accommodated by condition or legal agreement/undertaking.

The Highways Agency directs that permission shall not be granted until it has considered a Transport Assessment, using the DATS model to determine the scale and extent of traffic impacts.

The Pollution Control Manager has no objection in principle.

East Midland Development Agency comments as follows:

a) The development could make a major contribution to housing provision in the Structure Plan Derby Sub-Area. b) The review of the Regional Spatial Strategy will provide updated housing figures for the Derby Housing Market Area. c) The applicant does not appear to have sufficiently assessed the social and community needs generated by the development, for example schools, healthcare, retailing and other services. These concerns have also been expressed by the Derby and Derbyshire Economic Partnership (DDEP). d) Government guidance in Draft PPS3 states that housing should be located in areas with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. Furthermore, sustainable urban extensions should not be ‘bolted on’ to existing residential areas, but seek to integrate with existing residential areas such that they benefit each other. e) The proposal would benefit from existing transport infrastructure in Sinfin such as the Wragley Way bus service and local cycle routes. However there would be increased traffic volume in the surrounding areas. This is one of several potential large housing developments and it is understood that the highways authorities are concerned about cumulative impact on the highway network. It is essential that traffic studies based on the DATS model are taken into account. f) Whilst similar in scale to Boulton Moor (which EMDA supports) the approach to the provision of services is markedly different.

East Midlands Regional Assembly comments that the inspector, following the inquiry into the abandoned local plan in 2003, specifically rejected the principle of development on the site. It refers to the sequential approach to housing development and understands that sufficient land is available in the built up area of the city to meet current requirements.

English Nature requires surveys of breeding birds and invertebrates, and details of habitat management measures. Other aspects of wildlife interest can be protected by condition.

The Leisure Services Manager has no objection in principle.

Severn Trent Water Limited and The Environment Agency have no objection subject to conditions. Page 9 of 15

The County Education Authority seeks a contribution to establish a new primary school.

The Development Control Archaeologist considers that an archaeological evaluation should be undertaken before the application is determined.

City Cllr Robin Turner (Sinfin Ward) objects and seeks an early inquiry into the whole issue of additional housing need in Derby and adjacent parts of South Derbyshire.

Responses to Publicity

A petition of some 1737 signatories objects in detail under the general headings of Transport and Movement, Community and Human Impact, and Built and Rural Environment. In summary the issues raised are:

a) Existing inadequate transport infrastructure would be unable to cope with additional vehicle movements and associated activities. b) Educational, medical and other local services would be unable to sustain the increased population. c) There would be loss of valuable productive farmland and loss of wildlife habitat. d) The scheme would be unsympathetic to the general character of the area, without having fully explored the potential of other suitable sites.

Some 160 individual representations have been received raising the following objections:

a) The proximity of the proposed development would be detrimental to wildlife interests. b) The development will have a severe impact upon the quality of life for all of the residents to Wragley Way and the wider community. c) The existing open green area between the City of Derby and the village of Barrow on Trent should be retained. d) Wragley Way is an already a busy vehicle thoroughfare with a long and verifiable history of road traffic accidents. The creation of another vehicular route has the potential to increase this danger. e) All routes into the proposed development are affected by narrow bridges, which are subject to a weight restriction. f) The existing public transport infrastructure to and from the proposed development sites is inadequate. g) The drainage and sewage system may be inadequate. h) The land is susceptible to flooding. i) The present road network leading in and out of the established residential areas of Sinfin Moor and Stenson Fields are in the main

Page 10 of 15 English country lanes. In an emergency these roads would become grid locked within minutes. j) Medical services are currently fully subscribed and would not be able to accept new patients. k) The local dental surgery is relocating to Blagraves Lane leaving the area without any dental facilities. l) Capacity in local schools would be totally insufficient to service the needs of a hugely enlarged suburbia. There would be potential danger for school children walking to school given significant increases in traffic emanating from the planned site. m) Leisure facilities are inadequate. n) Sinfin District Centre, in the present day, isn’t necessarily ideal for servicing the current needs of the locally established communities. o) The developer is pursuing the cheaper option of “green field” areas as opposed to “brown field” or even “white field” sites. p) Increased pollution and noise. q) Increased fly tipping, litter and abandoned cars. r) Increased chance of nuisance visits from residents of this proposal. s) The rural are wod become urbanised. t) Devaluation of existing house prices would occur, based on the types of properties that are being proposed. u) The proposals are not aligned with guidance in PPG3 and are contrary to the appropriately applied policies within the Structure Plan. v) PPS1- Delivering Sustainable Development – the application site does not promote a sustainable pattern of development, as set out in paragraphs 4 and 5 of this policy. w) The application is contrary to the adopted Regional Spatial Strategy for the . In particular, this development is contrary to Policies 2, 3 & 20. x) The application is a departure from the development plan and should be referred to the Secretary of State. y) The Environmental Statement does not fully assess the impact of both developments (0070 & 0075). z) Three-storey buildings would be entirely out of keeping with the locality. aa) Within the areas covered by these applications there is an area of land designated “R.I.G.S”. (Regionally Important Geological Site) and the building of homes would mean the loss of this designated site forever. bb) The elevated A50 road with all its noise and atmospheric pollution would pose a health risk to anyone living in the new development. cc) The electricity pylons and cables, which cross the proposed site, pose a threat to the health and well being of anyone living in their immediate vicinity. dd) Existing gas and electricity supply lines may not cope with the additional loads to be placed on them and if not further construction and disruption may be required.

Page 11 of 15 Development Plan Policies

The relevant policies are: RSS8: Policies 2, 3, 18 &20. Joint Structure Plan: General Development Strategy Policies 1, 2, 3, 4 &5; Housing Policies 1,6 and 17; Transport Policies 1, 4, 5, 9, 10. 11, 12 & 15; Environment Policies 1, 7, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18 & 19. Local Plan: Housing Policies 8 & 11; Environment Policies1, 2, 4, 9, 11 & 14; Transport Polices 6, 7 & 8; Recreation & Tourism Policy 4; Community Facilities Policy 1.

Planning Considerations

The main issues central to the determination of this application are:

• Conformity with the development plan in, particular the existing Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), the Structure Plan and the Local Plan • Sustainability of the proposal, in particular the impact on the transport network, and the visual environment • Potential impact of the emerging replacement RSS, now published in draft on the consideration of not only this but all the other potential sites on the boundary. • the comparative advantage or disadvantage of this site as against other sites the subject of current applications or raised as omissions at the Local Plan Inquiry, in the light of the revision of the RSS.

Planning Assessment

The RSS and the Structure Plan require the sequential testing of sites for housing within and on the fringe of Derby and other urban areas. These policies are broadly compliant with the provisions of paras. 28-32 of PPG3. Thus the sequence should be previously developed sites and then greenfield sites within the city and any other ‘urban area’, then previously developed and then green field sites on the edge of the city and other ‘urban areas’ and only then looking to other sites outside those areas which are or could be well served by public transport. Proximity to work places, shops, education, cultural/ recreation and health facilities and ease of access by means other than the private car are determinants as is infrastructure and the ability to build new or successfully enlarge existing communities. The impact on the natural environment and means of integrating the development into it in a sustainable manner are also important considerations.

With the possible exception of Willington Power Station there are no available brown field sites that would meet the Structure Plan requirement to provide the 6500 houses in the Derby Sub Area within South Derbyshire between 1991 and 2011. Even if the power station site were to be developed, however, (and there are significant outstanding issues to be

Page 12 of 15 determined in assessing its acceptability) further sites would be required for housing to meet needs in this part of the district even up to 2011. The outstanding requirement is subject to final confirmation but somewhat less than 1500 remain to be allocated/permitted. Accordingly, Wragley Way and several other sites on the City boundary do conform broadly with the development plan as to their location, subject to resolution of the other issues required to enable them to be sustainable locations. Taken together, these sites would yield several thousands of houses and therefore not all of these would be required to make up the Structure Plan control total for the number of dwellings.

A further factor to consider, however, is the imminent draft RSS for the East Midlands - published on 28th September –which will establish development needs to 2026. This will be likely to require a significant provision of housing on the edge of the built-up area of the City in South Derbyshire.

In the long-run, subject to any formal representations this Council will wish to make on the draft RSS and the outcome of an Examination in Public in Spring next year, it is likely that several greenfield sites on the southern edge of Derby will be required for housing to meet needs up to 2026. Nevertheless, important issues in terms of site selection need to be considered carefully including how the release of edge-of-City sites should be phased in the period up to 2026 to ensure sustainable development together with consideration of more detailed matters relating to the suitability of proposals.

In this regard, a significant omission in the appraisal is the lack of a transportation assessment demonstrating impact on the network and satisfactory measures to mitigate it. Because data from the Derby Area Transport Model commissioned by the City, County and Highways Agency is only very recently becoming available, assessments for all major sites have awaited the release of figures on their likely impact. No assessment is yet to hand for the appeal site but discussions with the 3 Highways Authorities indicate that finding a solution to the congestion already occurring on the two roads: Sinfin Lane and Stenson Road, leading into the City is significantly constrained. These corridors are not wide enough to provide dedicated bus lanes or other traffic management measures that would assist traffic flows. Without that, the development would lead to more congestion on already heavily congested roads. Whether or not this is a determining factor is not yet finally known, because there is no Transport Assessment. Yet, as things stand the City Council opposes development of this site for this reason.

The Council opposed inclusion of this site in the Local Plan partly for this reason but also because it would represent an unacceptable intrusion into the countryside. Of all the competing sites this is the most southerly, extending up to the A50. It is also prominently overlooked by the A50 and two bridges crossing it. The Council has argued that this road remains a rural trunk road and should not be subject to urbanising development. A Page 13 of 15 comprehensive Visual Impact Assessment submitted on behalf of the applicants seeks to down grade the impact of the development but, on the strength of a simple visual inspection, other competing sites would make a less intrusive impact. The applicants seek to mitigate the effect by an extensive landscape buffer between the development and the trunk road, coinciding with a gas pipeline crossing the land parallel with the road and a power line within it also would exclude building under it. This would be partially effective, screening the site from fast moving traffic on the road, but not from the bridges over it.

Extensive areas of open space for this and for reasons of mitigating other environmental impacts are shown on the submitted master plan. These would have low value as public open space and, if maintained in a manner protecting their amenity value, would be a maintenance liability, probably falling on the Local Authority in the longer term. Also the overall density of the site is lower than might be efficiently achieved by using more of it, raising a question over the comparative sustainability of the development. On the other hand, higher site usage would mean more traffic and more congestion. The vacant land to the north within the city boundary would make an obvious extension thereby further increasing the numbers of dwellings and thus the impact. Concerns about the adequacy of play space and playing fields would be capable of resolution at the stage of a detailed consideration in conjunction with the City Council.

Consideration of the application has also been delayed by the lack of submission of data relating to wildlife impact. These matters are likely to be resolved by the applicants supplying the required assessments and mitigation as details to be agreed either by condition or S106 Agreement. Concerns over the protection of any possible archaeology on the site may also be remedied at a more detailed stage. Subject to resolution of these environmental issues and adequate transportation/highway measures being agreed, refusal on environmental grounds alone is unlikely to succeed. However, the issue of which the competing sites, if any, is the most sustainable/to be preferred remains unanswerable as it now stands, in relation to transport, environmental mitigation and the phasing of development. The prominence of this issue has risen as a result of the acceptance by PINS of several of these sites as interested parties to appear at the inquiry.

On the face of it there are grounds for opposition to the development that would warrant refusal. The strength of these will be subject to rigorous testing at the inquiry. However, there may be another way to view the development in the wider context of the new RSS proposals. It may well be that through the RSS process, a transport solution could be found which would enable the satisfactory co-ordination of the development of such sites and provided the necessary S.106 contributions to provide, for example, necessary works in support of the City’s Local Transport Plan or a new distributor road reducing the impact on existing inadequate corridors.

However, all of this would need to be planned, co-ordinated and phased, taking into account other factors such as the provision of the necessary Page 14 of 15 infrastructure to build communities. In the context of the building of so many new dwellings, the applicant’s reliance on existing infrastructure and community facilities is unrealistic. Adequate provision would need to be the subject of a joint approach by both Derby City, the County and South Derbyshire District Councils, which could be worked up coincidentally with preparation of the draft RSS. Whilst the finally approved RSS is programmed for early 2008, the Report of the Panel is expected in mid-2007. There will therefore be considerable strategic certainty at RSS level within the next 8 – 10 months.

In the meantime, however, it will be important to ensure a continuing annual build rate in the Derby Sub-Area. In this regard, there are sufficient unimplemented planning permissions in Derby and South Derbyshire (mainly in the Hilton area) to maintain supply at least for the coming two years or so, pending resolution of a strategic solution.

In conclusion, there are grounds for opposition to the application at appeal as it stands partly because it has not been demonstrated to be sustainable and partly for inherent disadvantages as compared to other competing sites where such difficulties may be more easily overcome.

None of the other matters raised through the publicity and consultation process amount to material considerations outweighing the assessment of the main issues set out above.

Recommendation 1 That the Committee expresses the view that the development would be unacceptable in its present form at least until a comprehensive approach for southern Derby and contiguous environs, involving proportionate contributions to improving infrastructure, highway and public transport improvements and phasing to mitigate impacts has been formulated. In other words, in its present form, the development has not been demonstrated to be sustainable.

Page 15 of 15