28 April 2017 The Local Plan Team Amber Valley Borough Council Town Hall Market Place Ripley ...

39 Pages·2017·0.94 MB·English

28 April 2017
The Local Plan Team
Amber Valley Borough Council
Town Hall
Market Place
Ripley
Derbyshire
DE5 3BT

Dear Sirs

Draft Amber Valley Borough Local Plan – representation in respect of Ash Farm, Loscoe (site
PHS079)

We act on behalf of Mr Gordon Hall who owns Ash Farm, Loscoe and are instructed to make
representations on our client’s behalf to the draft Amber Valley Borough Local Plan. Ash Farm is
referred to in the Local Plan evidence base with the reference number PHS079.

Our client is disappointed to learn that his land has not been considered suitable for allocation. We
understand that the purpose of the current consultation is to identify any shortcomings in policies
and deficiencies in the evidence base prior to the Local Plan being finalised. Therefore, to assist with
this process, we have outlined below various points of clarification relating to Ash Farm and the
general strategy of the Local Plan that we trust will be considered by the Council when refining the
Local Plan ahead of its Regulation 19 pre-submission consultation.

Extent of Ash Farm

The extent and availability of our client’s landholdings have been misrepresented in the assessment
of site PHS079. Our client owns an adjoining parcel further to the south as well as an existing
property on Denby Lane. Furthermore, whilst owning the triangular parcel north of Loscoe Brook,
this is not an area our client is actively promoting for development. For clarity, the area of land that
site PHS079 should relate to is shown in Figure 1 below:

Smith Jenkins Ltd is a registered company (No. 8129229). Registered address: 30A High Street, Stony Stratford, Milton Keynes, MK11 1AF
VAT number 186 9643 49
2

Figure 1: Extent of Ash Farm as promoted

The discrepancy in the form and size of the available site is important as it has influenced how the
potential impacts of development have been assessed in terms of access, landscape and
coalescence. It also affects the estimated development yield, which our client expects to be
considerably lower than the stated 254 at just 150 dwellings. These matters are explored further
below.

Access

The site assessment concludes that development of the whole site would result in the loss of
number 21 High Street, Loscoe, which is a Grade II listed building. This is ostensibly due to a
presumption that access to the site will be taken through the plot currently occupied by no.21.

However, 76 Denby Lane is now also in our client’s ownership, which offers an alternative access to
the site that would not require the demolition of a listed building. This access point has the added
benefit of being closer to bus stops and better serves the parcels of Ash Farm that our client is
actively promoting for development.

Together with the clarified size and extent of the site, the new proposed access materially alters the
character of the potential development and would result in a much less harmful option. We trust
that the site assessment can be amended accordingly.

Smith Jenkins Ltd is a registered company (No. 8129229). Registered address: 30A High Street, Stony Stratford, Milton Keynes, MK11 1AF
VAT number 186 9643 49
3

Landscape and coalescence

The site assessment for Ash Farm refers to potential significant impacts on landscape and
townscape, specifically noting that development would result in the coalescence of Loscoe and
Crosshills.

However, this is based on the assumption that development would occur across the whole site. In
reality, our client is only promoting land to the south of Loscoe Brook, which is a natural and logical
break between Loscoe and Crosshills. Furthermore, development of the parcel furthest south (which
has seemingly been excluded from the site assessment) would represent a far more logical and less
intrusive development around Loscoe. The remaining land would be preserved and managed as an
open green ‘buffer’, as shown in the below indicative concept:

Figure 2: Indicative development concept; brown shaded area is possible residential development,
green is area reserved as ‘buffer’ to preserve openness of the Green Belt.

It is noted that the landscape assessment undertaken by Wardell Armstong identifies the entire area
as being of high landscape sensitivity. However, in paragraph 6.2.54 it also acknowledges that:

“to the north, near Loscoe, the landscape undulates, and there are medium to small sized fields
(medium fields are less typical of this LCT), which are bound by linear tree belts. Existing development
within this area atypical of the Coalfield Village Farmlands LCT as this part of Heanor is located in a
localised valley, rather than on ridge lines, which is where development in this LCT is typically
placed”.

Smith Jenkins Ltd is a registered company (No. 8129229). Registered address: 30A High Street, Stony Stratford, Milton Keynes, MK11 1AF
VAT number 186 9643 49
4

It is therefore unclear how the area can be of high sensitivity when existing development is already
atypical in character. Strategically, the creation of negative environmental effects can be avoided by
directing growth to areas where the baseline circumstances are already unfavourable. In any case, a
more granular landscape assessment would be able to identify smaller areas that could be
particularly well developed without any wider landscape impacts. The portion of our client’s land
furthest south is one such example as it would concentrate development closer to the ridgeline
above the Loscoe Brook in keeping with the identified characteristics of the Coalfields Village
Farmlands Landscape Character Area.

Overall plan strategy

Our client supports the settlement hierarchy and general distribution of growth outlined in the draft
Local Plan. The inclusion of Loscoe within the urban area of Heanor is logical yet is undermined by
the selection of sites that are all towards the centre or south of the urban area. The allocation of Ash
Farm would represent a more balanced distribution of growth in the Heanor urban area and spread
the impacts and benefits of development more evenly across the locality.

Despite the general distribution and settlement hierarchy being sound, our client is concerned that
the overall strategy (in terms of housing requirement and site selection) has been prejudiced by an
intention to avoid Green Belt release. We consider that a full review of the Borough’s Green Belt
should have been undertaken as a matter of course. This would be likely to identify sites that poorly
fulfil the five purposes of Green Belt and provide alternative development options to supplement
the draft Local Plan allocations.

We would advocate the allocation of additional sites irrespective of Green Belt release. It is
understood that as a result of the draft Local Plan the Council claim to have a housing land supply of
5.83 years. Relying on the contribution of draft allocations is inadvisable in itself but clearly supply
will remain marginal even if the plan is found sound and the sites are delivered as expected. It is
understood that as recently as October 2016 the Council was not defending its 5-year supply at
appeal (ref: APP/M1005/W/16/3147211) so it is difficult to conclude that this situation has markedly
improved so quickly.

Therefore the allocation of additional sites will help provide a contingency and demonstrate that the
Local Plan is ‘positively prepared’ and consistent with national policy in respect of significantly
boosting the supply of housing. Ash Farm is extremely well-placed to provide a boost to land supply.
Our client has freehold control of the land and proposes a development of up to 150 dwellings,
which in our experience is around the maximum that could be reasonably be expected to be
delivered within 5-years from a ‘standing start’.

Ash Farm’s Green Belt location is the only outstanding issue in the site assessment that has been
applied. Landscape, access and heritage issues are all satisfactorily resolved by a more accurate
consideration of the land’s configuration and the alternative access that is available. By definition,
harm to Green Belt can only occur in the sense of policy as Green Belt is an artificial rather than
natural designation. The NPPF explains that Green Belt serves five purposes:
Smith Jenkins Ltd is a registered company (No. 8129229). Registered address: 30A High Street, Stony Stratford, Milton Keynes, MK11 1AF
VAT number 186 9643 49
5

 to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
 to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another
 to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
 to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns
 to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land
Applying an assessment of each purpose to Ash Farm reveals that it makes a poor contribution and
should be considered suitable for release.

In terms of sprawl, Loscoe is already a notable extrusion to the north-west of the wider Heanor
urban area. Ash Farm does not provide a check to this and instead wraps neatly and tightly around
the northern boundary of Loscoe. The Loscoe Brook to the north provides a far more natural check
to the built-up area, which is in any case surrounded by smaller piecemeal development such as
Cross Hill to the north and intermittent ribbon development on Loscoe-Denby Lane to the west.

Ash Farm does lie in the gap between Loscoe and Cross Hill but does not in itself prevent these areas
from merging. The matter of coalescence is addressed above in outlining that our client does not
actually intend to promote the area further north (closest to Cross Hill). The result of this
clarification is that the area actually proposed for development is no closer to Cross Hill than existing
development either side of the A6007, i.e. if Ash Farm were released, Loscoe and Cross Hill would
not merge.

Equally, the surrounding countryside is not safeguarded against encroachment by the retention of
Ash Farm within the Green Belt. The area around Loscoe is openly acknowledged in the
accompanying landscape report as being atypical of the broader landscape character, which
therefore limits the contribution the surrounding countryside (including Ash Farm) makes to
openness. Furthermore, the area promoted by our client shares an extensive part of its perimeter
with existing residential properties and is clearly not genuine countryside that has ‘intrinsic beauty’
according to the NPPF.

Finally, in terms of the setting and special character of historic towns and urban regeneration, it is
clear that neither of these purposes are relevant to Ash Farm. In terms of regeneration, it is notable
that the allocations in the draft Local Plan have focussed on previously developed land. However, as
explained above, this should not preclude a consideration of Green Belt release, particularly where
land supply is marginal.

Conclusion

Our client, Mr Gordon Hall, is promoting his land at Ash Farm, Loscoe for residential development.
The draft Amber Valley Borough Local Plan has considered this site unsuitable for allocation.
However, this assessment has been based on a misunderstanding of the site’s size and extent. When
considered in its intended form, the site performs much more strongly and should be seriously
considered as an additional allocation to provide a land supply contingency and a more balanced
approach to growth across the wider Heanor area (of which Loscoe has been purposefully made a
part, despite benefitting from no allocations in the draft Local Plan).
Smith Jenkins Ltd is a registered company (No. 8129229). Registered address: 30A High Street, Stony Stratford, Milton Keynes, MK11 1AF
VAT number 186 9643 49
6

The site is identified as having a high landscape sensitivity in the published evidence base although
this is illogical when it is characterised as being inconsistent with the wider area. A consideration of
its true extent reveals a much less significant impact as well as a negligible contribution to the
purpose of the Green Belt. It is considered that a review of potential Green Belt sites for release
would greatly enhance the prospects of the Local Plan being found sound as would the allocation of
additional medium sized sites such as Ash Farm.

Should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me at this office. Smith Jenkins
wishes to be notified of any future updates in respect of the Amber Valley Borough Local Plan.
Yours faithfully

Samuel Dix MRTPI
Senior Planner
Smith Jenkins Ltd is a registered company (No. 8129229). Registered address: 30A High Street, Stony Stratford, Milton Keynes, MK11 1AF
VAT number 186 9643 49
AMBER VALLEY BOROUGH LOC AL PLAN – DRAFT LOCAL PLAN
CONSULTATION RESPONSE FORM

Please return your completed form to arrive no later than 4:30pm on Friday 28 April
2017 to: The Local Plan Team, Amber Valley Borough Council, Town Hall, Market Place,
Ripley, Derbyshire DE5 3BT or to [email protected]

Your Details:-

Title Mr
First Name Gordon
Surname Hall
Job Title (if relevant)
Organisation
Property Name / Number c/o agent
Street
Locality
Town
Post Code
Telephone Number c/o agent
E-mail Address c/o agent

Agent Details:

Agent’s Title Mr
Agent’s First Name Samuel
Agent’s Surname Dix
Job Title Senior Planner
Company Smith Jenkins
Property Name /
Number
Street
Locality
Town
Post Code
Telephone Number
E-mail Address

Making a Difference for Amber Valley
Data Protection

Please note that your submitted comments will be used in the plan process for the lifetime
of the Local Plan in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. Your response cannot
be treated as confidential as they will be available for public inspection and may also be
made available to Derby City Council and South Derbyshire District Council in the
preparation of their Local Plan.

Please note that the number of comments submitted is anticipated to be high and
therefore it will not be possible to acknowledge receipt of or respond to your
representation.

QUESTIONS

Please answer the questions that are relevant to what you are interested in; you do
not need to answer all of the questions.

AMBER VALLEY BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN
DRAFT LOCAL PLAN – MARCH 2017

Chapter 3 Spatial Portrait for Amber Valley
Please give your comments quoting the relevant paragraph numbers as appropriate and
state what (if any) changes you consider are necessary.

Chapter 4 Spatial Vision for Amber Valley
Please give your comments quoting the relevant paragraph numbers as appropriate and
state what (if any) changes you consider are necessary

Making a Difference for Amber Valley
Chapter 5 Strategic Objectives
Please give your comments stating which objective(s) they refer to and state what (if any)
changes you consider are necessary

Chapter 6 Spatial Strategy Policies

Policy SS1 Presumption In Favour Of Sustainable Development
Please give your comments on the content of the policy and supporting text quoting the
relevant paragraph numbers as appropriate and state what (if any) changes you consider
are necessary

Policy SS2 Housing Land Provision & Distribution
Please give your comments on the content of the policy and supporting text quoting the
relevant paragraph numbers as appropriate and state what (if any) changes you consider
are necessary

Allocations and overall growth appears to have been unreasonably influenced by the intention to avoid
Green Belt release. Please see accompanying letter.

Making a Difference for Amber Valley
Policy SS3 Settlement Hierarchy
Please give your comments on the content of the policy and supporting text quoting the
relevant paragraph numbers as appropriate and state what (if any) changes you consider
are necessary

The inclusion of Loscoe within the Heanor urban area is logical yet undermined by no allocations being
made in this area. Our client’s land at Ash Farm has not been considered accurately. Please see
accompanying letter.

Policy SS4 Business & Industrial Land Provision & Distribution
Please give your comments on the content of the policy and supporting text quoting the
relevant paragraph numbers as appropriate and state what (if any) changes you consider
necessary

Policy SS5 Other Locations To Support Economic Growth
Please give your comments on the content of the policy and supporting text quoting the
relevant paragraph numbers as appropriate and state what (if any) changes you consider
necessary

Making a Difference for Amber Valley