IR Housing - South Derbyshire District Council

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
4. CHAPTER 4 – HOUSING
4.1 HOUSING - GENERAL OBJECTIONS
4.1.1 A number of objections which purport to have been made to housing
policies in general, or specifically to Policies H1 or H2, actually promote
the allocation of specific sites for housing sites. All such omission sites
are addressed in section 4.11 below, and I shall consider general
principles below and in section 4.2. Some objections made under
“Housing: General” actually relate to such matters as the settlement
hierarchy in Policy H1, and these objections are considered below. Issues
relating to the suitability and deliverability of the allocated housing sites are
dealt with under the respective policies. As a result, 2 or more different
parts of what has been recorded as one objection may be covered in
different sections of the report.
A. HOUSING LAND SUPPLY
Objections
D7/1502, 199R Government Office for the East Midlands
& 201R
F14/1459 & 48R The House Builders Federation
F78/14R
Diocese of Derby
G7/1283 William Davis Ltd
G10/227R Redrow Homes (Midlands) Ltd
G21/994 David Wilson Homes (North Midlands)
G163/1018, Charterhouse Land Ltd
157R & 158R
G171/1099 & J S Bloor (Measham) Ltd
219R
G182/1336 Hallam Land Management Ltd
G216/1146 RMC (UK)
G226/1163 Gainsborough Properties
G240/60, 59R Westbury Homes (Holdings) Ltd
G243/1422,
1428
G253/ 262 &
65R
David Wilson Estates, Miller Homes (East Midlands) &
Taylor Woodrow
Countany Ltd
G258/1363 Miller Homes East Midlands
G306/1199 George Wimpey UK & Repton School
&213R
77

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
H53/1215 Roger Bullivant Ltd
J325/381 Mrs H Roberts
J468/1121, Roger Boissier
150R
J645/246 Mr J W Poultney
J813/524 Mrs Christine Cox
Issues
a. Whether the Plan makes adequate provision to meet the overall housing
requirement.
b. Whether the components of housing supply in Table 1 will be delivered.
a. Whether there should be a reference to the appropriate density of new
housing development
b. Whether the Plan properly implements the principles of Plan, Monitor and
Manage.
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
Preamble
4.1.2 I deal with issues arising from firstly, the general housing land supply issues,
namely the main components of Table 1 of the Plan, and, secondly, the
housing distribution and locational strategy that forms the basis of Policy H1.
My reasoning and conclusions here are limited to the locational strategy and
the distribution that this produces. I do not discuss the merits of particular
sites, nor do I enter into a level of detail lower than the individual
settlements. Each of the allocated sites is considered individually in sections
4.5 to 4.10.
Housing Requirement: Preliminary Matters
4.1.3 Table 1 of the RDDLP provides the basis for my reasoning and conclusions
relating to the housing requirement. However, various updates to these
figures have been provided by SDDC, principally those in the Housing Topic
Paper (CD/A27) and then again in the proof of evidence to the housing
round table session (SDDC/HRTS/REBUTTAL/1).
4.1.4 These updates address a number of the concerns raised by the objectors and
in this respect are very helpful. However, the base date for the table has
also been updated from 2002 in the RDDLP to 2003. Clearly it would not be
appropriate to have figures in Table 1 of the Plan based on different base
dates. As such, it is not possible to amend those figures which have been
changed in order to address objections without also updating the other
figures in the Plan to the 2003 base date.
4.1.5 In such circumstances I believe that the most appropriate option is to update
all the figures in Table 1 of the Plan in line with the most up-to-date version
provided by SDDC, i.e. those in the SDDC proof of evidence to the housing
round table session.
4.1.6 Where objections relate to earlier figures in the DDLP, RDDLP or Housing
Topic Paper, I have taken into account the principle of the objection in my
78

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
reasoning and conclusions below.
Housing Requirement from the Adopted Structure Plan
4.1.7 The overall housing requirement for the Plan emanates from Housing Policy
17 of the Derby and Derbyshire Joint Structure Plan 1991-2011. The figures
for the 2 sub-areas in the Structure Plan have been transposed directly into
Table 1. One objector contends that greater weight should be given to the
new annual housing figures proposed through RPG8. The revised regional
guidance in RPG8 includes an average annual housing requirement of 2,550
for Derby and Derbyshire. However, this is not disaggregated into District
targets. Nor is there any indication before me regarding how this figure
would be apportioned at District level. In the absence of such information, it
is not possible to say at this stage whether there would be a reduction (prorata
or otherwise) in the requirement for South Derbyshire. Therefore,
although the revised regional guidance is at an advanced stage, there is no
basis on which to recommend anything other than that the Plan must be in
general conformity with the adopted Structure Plan. There is nothing in the
objections or evidence before me which gives me reason to question the
validity of its figures and I therefore support their use as the starting point
for the housing strategy and policies in the Plan.
4.1.8 Another objector claims that the housing figures in the Plan should not be
divided by sub-area. I do not agree. The figures are disaggregated by subarea
in the Structure Plan and therefore I believe that the approach used in
the Plan is entirely appropriate, and indeed necessary in order to conform to
the strategic planning framework.
4.1.9 A further issue raised by objectors is whether the Plan allocates sufficient
land to meet the Structure Plan housing requirement, in particular whether
the requirement in PPG3, paragraph 34, to identify a 5 year supply of
housing land, is fulfilled. In addition, a number of objectors have raised
concerns over the deliverability of the various components of supply. I
examine the latter as part of the site specific objections. From the
conclusions I draw, I am satisfied that there will be at least a 5 year supply
of deliverable housing land.
4.1.10 A number of objectors also point to the 2003 Budget Statement which
indicates that the Government will ensure that local authorities make
provision for at least 10 years potential supply of housing. However,
contrary to the view of the objectors, the Budget Statement does not place
a requirement on this Plan to identify a 10 year supply of housing land.
There is no planning policy or guidance that requires the inclusion of a 10
year supply. Nor is there a strategic context on which such a supply could
be based. Furthermore, this Plan only runs until 2011. It would be illogical
therefore to incorporate a 10 year supply of housing land in a plan which,
after adoption, is likely to have 6 or so years remaining.
Completed Dwellings
4.1.11 The first element of supply in Table 1 of the Plan is the number of
completed dwellings. The RDDLP includes a figure for the period 1991-
2002, but this figure is updated in the SDDC Housing Topic Paper (CDA27)
to include completions for the period 1991-2003. At 2003 the number of
completions stood at 7116, of which 3,582 (298.5 dwellings per annum)
were in the Swadlincote sub-area and 3,534 (294.5 dwellings per annum)
79

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
in the Derby sub-area.
4.1.12 No objections are raised to the accuracy of the figures themselves, but
concern is expressed that the distribution of the completions in the 2 subareas
does not represent the split sought in the Structure Plan. Table 3.3 of
the Structure Plan requires the provision of 5,500 dwellings in the
Swadlincote sub-area and 6,500 dwellings in the Derby sub-area over the
period 1991-2011. This produces an annualised requirement of 275 and
325 dwellings per annum respectively for the Swadlincote and Derby subareas.
4.1.13 When this requirement is compared to the annualised rate of completions
over the past 12 years (1991-2003), it is evident that there has been an
annual surplus of 23.5 (275 - 298.5) completions in the Swadlincote subarea
and an annual shortfall of 30.5 (325 - 294.5) in the Derby sub-area.
Whilst these figures almost cancel each other out over the District as a
whole, (albeit there is an overall shortfall of 84 dwellings i.e. 7,200 -
7,116), the figures show that the pro-rata distribution between the 2 subareas
has not been achieved to date.
4.1.14 Some objectors contend that there needs to be a realistic mix of allocated
sites in the Derby sub-area to redress the imbalance. It would appear from
the figures in the Plan and the Housing Topic Paper that the Council has
taken into account the past completion rates in determining the number
and location of new housing allocations. Indeed, the overall housing
provision and size of the allocations in the Plan is sufficient to fulfil the
housing requirements for each of the 2 sub-areas and redress the
imbalance from the completions to date. On this basis, the mix of housing
sites in the Plan meets the Structure Plan requirement. I deal with the
merits of the allocated sites, including deliverability, and the impact that
this will have on the housing distribution, in subsequent sections.
Sites with planning permission
4.1.15 Various objectors question the likelihood of dwellings on some of the sites
with planning permission being delivered. A number of them suggest that
certain identified sites should be deleted from this component of housing
supply, while others propose that a flexibility or non-implementation
allowance be applied to reflect the uncertainty.
4.1.16 In response, SDDC has not applied a flexibility allowance, but has instead
re-evaluated the sites involved. The result of this exercise is set out in the
further revision of Table 1 included in the Council’s proof of evidence to the
Housing RTS. This produces a reduced figure (1,796) for ‘dwellings with
planning permission expected to be built 2003-2011’.
4.1.17 In my view, this is the most appropriate approach in the circumstances. I
acknowledge the benefits that a flexibility/non-implementation allowance
would bring. But, in effect, it represents an over-allocation of housing land
which would be inconsistent with the advice in paragraph 30 of PPG3.
Moreover, in my opinion, it would be unnecessary in the context of the
‘plan, monitor and manage’ (PMM) regime. Rather than simply overallocating
land in the hope that the requirement will be met, the PMM
approach should be applied to the supply of land. I consider objections
relating to PMM below.
80

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
4.1.18 Finally, 2 objectors seek a policy to state that existing planning permissions
for housing development on greenfield land will not be renewed if they
lapse. I was not given any indications how many, if any, permissions would
be involved. Without such information, I consider that it would be
unreasonable to have such a blanket embargo, especially when sustainable
greenfield sites in the Derby sub-area could be involved. Indeed, PPG3
advises that in some circumstances the renewal of some permissions may
not accord with current guidance, but contains no such embargo. Sites
should be considered on their merits against the other provisions of the
Plan. Accordingly, therefore I am not satisfied that the change proposed in
this respect would improve the Plan.
Windfall Sites
4.1.19 The figure for windfall completions in the Plan increased by 100 dwellings,
from 230 in the DDLP up to 330 in the RDDLP. A more recent estimate in
the Housing Topic Paper (CD/A27) puts the windfall estimate at 400
dwellings over the period 2003-2011. The same figure is included in Table
3 of the SDDC proof of evidence to the Housing Round Table Session
(SDDC/HRTS/REBUTTAL/1). SDDC contend (in paragraph 5.5 of the
CD/A27) that the increase has been made “in the light of the survey results
for 2003”.
4.1.20 In CD/A27 the 400 dwellings are split, with 280 in the Swadlincote subarea
and 120 dwellings in the Derby sub-area. The Council claims to have
adopted a cautious approach to the calculation of likely future windfall
rates, drawing only on the past trends of brownfield completions under 10
dwellings in size (see paragraph 5.3 of the Housing Topic Paper) and
adopting a completion rate less than the historical rate of development.
With regards the latter point, Annex 5 of the Housing Topic Paper shows
that on average 71 dwellings per annum have been achieved in the period
1991-2003. This varies from a low of 45 dwellings in 1996/97 to a high of
114 dwellings in 2001/02.
4.1.21 A number of specific criticisms have been directed at SDDC’s figures, both
in the Plan and in CDA27. I now consider each of these in turn.
4.1.22 Firstly, it is contended that there is double-counting between this
component of supply and the figure for existing planning permissions. The
Council acknowledges this, but do not believe that it substantially
undermines the figures in the Plan. The supplementary paper on housing
land supply produced following the Housing Round Table session
(CD/A27b), includes alternative windfall estimates adjusted to discount
planning permissions and estimates of the contribution from large windfall
sites (based on the historical rate of completions from the past three
years). This assessment produced a total of 541 dwellings, equating to 68
dwellings per annum. This shows that that, despite the double-counting,
there remains a reasonable prospect of delivering 400 windfall completions
over the remainder of the plan period. I agree with this interpretation, in
which case I see no reason to amend the figure.
4.1.23 Secondly, one objector questions the consistency between the figures for
windfall completions and land availability in the Housing Topic Paper
[Annexes 5 and 4 respectively]. It is my understanding that the
completions figure in the land availability summary represents the number
81

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
of completions achieved to date on those particular sites. This figure does
not necessarily relate to completions in the previous year, and thus cannot
be used to establish the number of windfall completions in that year. On
this basis, I am not satisfied that the figures in question are inconsistent.
4.1.24 Thirdly, it is argued that there is insufficient evidence to justify the 400
dwelling windfall figure. It is claimed that windfalls will not necessarily
continue at the same rate as has been achieved in recent years. I agree
that the future windfall completion rate may not necessary reflect past
trends. Nevertheless, past trends do provide a useful guide as to likely
future development rates, as is recognised in PPG3, paragraph 36. I also
note that the initial assessment of past trends which informed the figure in
the Plan was derived from an analysis of small sites only (

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
and thus a shortfall of 2,352 dwellings over the plan area as a whole. The
table also shows the up-to-date figures for dwellings coming forward from
the housing allocations in the Plan. In the Swadlincote sub-area these
amount to 430 dwellings, while in the Derby sub-area there are allocations
for 2,265 dwellings. These allocations are outlined in Tables 2 and 3 of the
Housing Chapter and the dedicated policies for the larger sites in the Plan.
4.1.31 One objector contends that greater emphasis should be placed on sites
which are unconstrained and hence more certain to come forward. I accept
that deliverability is an extremely important consideration, but the
allocation of housing sites should not be made entirely on the basis that
they are the easiest to develop. Rather the test should be ‘whether there is
a reasonable prospect’ that the allocations will come forward within the
plan period. Deliverability is likely to differ depending on the individual
sites and I deal with this subsequently.
Density
4.1.32 One objector contends that the Plan should contain a density policy which
seeks to ensure that housing is constructed at between 30-50 dwellings per
hectare. I address this matter as part of my consideration of Policy ENV21.
Plan, Monitor, Manage
4.1.33 Subject to the conclusions relating to the individual housing allocations, I
am satisfied that the initial planning element of PMM is reasonably accurate
and up-to-date. On my assessment of the evidence before me, and from
my understanding of the area, I am reasonably confident that development
will take place as proposed on the remaining sites with planning
permission.
4.1.34 Turning to the second element of PMM, one objector suggests that the Plan
should contain arrangements for the monitoring and review of
development, to ensure that there is no over-provision or shortfall against
strategic housing requirements. Others suggest that release of greenfield
land, especially in villages, should be phased if completions from previously
developed land do not meet local needs. The argument that this should be
assessed on the basis of local areas, rather than the Plan’s sub-areas, is
addressed below.
4.1.35 It is also claimed that the Plan does not realistically consider phasing and
completion rates on the allocated sites, nor does it include any mechanism
to remedy any problems with them, such as infrastructure and physical
constraints.
4.1.36 In the context of sites with planning permission, PMM requires that an
accurate and up-to-date figure is planned for in the first instance.
Completions on the sites which contribute towards this figure should then
be rigorously monitored and finally a mechanism should be put in place to
manage a shortfall should monitoring reveal that this is likely to occur.
4.1.37 I am confident that the PMM system explained in the Housing Topic Paper
will ensure that rates of development are adequately monitored. This
would enable problems and delays to be identified at an early stage and
give the Council the opportunity to consider whether it needed to take any
action to resolve constraints or to consider further releases. Reference is
83

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
made to monitoring as a performance indicator in various amendments
incorporated in the RDDLP, and I see no need for any more detailed
provisions to be included in the Plan. I am satisfied that these
arrangements are sufficient to enable the accurate and ongoing monitoring
of housing completions, as required under PMM. I am not persuaded that
detailed proposals for phasing are needed for each of the allocated housing
sites.
4.1.38 Regarding the final element of PMM – manage – I do have some concerns
that there is no mechanism in the Plan which can be activated should
monitoring reveal that there is likely to be to a shortfall in housing supply.
Despite my confidence about the likelihood of housing on sites with
planning permission coming forward as predicted, there can be no
guarantee that this will be the case.
The ‘Manage’ Element of Plan, Monitor and Manage
4.1.39 As outlined above, a number of objectors contend that the Plan should
include a flexibility/non-implementation allowance. Most argue that this
should be in the order of 10% of the housing requirement. In practice, this
would require the identification and allocation of housing sites to
accommodate 10% more dwellings than the Plan does already. For the
reasons highlighted elsewhere, above, I am not in favour of such an
allowance.
4.1.40 Other objectors suggest the inclusion of a ‘reserve’ allocation. This would
involve the identification of one or more sites in the Plan which would be
held back until a specific trigger date when the annual monitoring would
reveal whether they are needed to meet the housing requirement. If the
‘reserve’ is not needed during the Plan period it can be considered
alongside all other sites in the review of the Plan. In many ways I support
the principle suggested by the objectors and agree that the ‘reserve’ site
mechanism would provide a suitable management mechanism in
accordance with PMM. Nevertheless I do not recommend that this
approach be incorporated into this Plan. The reason for this relates to the
timing of the new Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
4.1.41 Under the provisions of the Act, the relevant parts of which commence on
28 th September 2004, local authorities are required to prepare new style
Local Development Frameworks (LDFs). Within an LDF are a number of
Development Plan Documents (DPDs) which make up the statutory
development plan. It is envisaged that a DPD should take approximately 3
years to produce from inception through to adoption. There is no reason to
suggest that this timetable cannot be achieved in South Derbyshire and it
follows therefore that SDDC should be in a position to adopt a DPD with
new housing allocations by around 2009.
4.1.42 If a ‘reserve’ site allocation were to be incorporated into the Plan there
would be little value in adopting a trigger date of before 2009 as to do so
would not allow sufficient time to assess whether the ‘reserve’ sites would
or would not be needed to meet the housing requirement. Given this fact
and the likely timing for the production of a DPD (which includes new
housing allocations) it is not in my view necessary to incorporate provision
for ‘reserve’ sites. SDDC will be in a position to take into account the
delivery of the housing requirement and address a shortfall should one
occur through a DPD. This will provide a longer timeframe for the delivery
84

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
of housing and greater certainty over the housing allocations than the
introduction of a ‘reserve’ allocation.
4.1.43 Although this approach does not incorporate a specific ‘management’
mechanism into this Plan, taking into account the situation on the ground in
my view the approach provides a realistic and entirely appropriate solution
in the present circumstances.
4.1.44 The approach in Part B of Policy H1, which enables development on
unallocated greenfield land in the event that the 3 criteria in the policy are
met, represents a management mechanism of sorts. But, as described in
my consideration of Policy H1, I cannot support this approach. In
permitting development on unallocated greenfield land, the policy
effectively legitimises greenfield windfall development. This is contrary to
the guidance in PPG3.
4.1.45 The definition of a windfall site in paragraph 35 of PPG3 is “previously
developed sites that have unexpectedly become available”. Since “windfall
sites are those which have not been specifically identified as available in
the local plan process” 1 there are no provisions in PPG3 for greenfield sites
to be brought forward for development unless they are expressly allocated
in a local plan.
4.1.46 The final issue in this section relates to the over-allocation of housing in the
Plan. The RDDLP over-allocates housing land in the region of 282 dwellings.
By contrast, a figure of 894 dwellings or 7.5% is identified in the Housing
Topic Paper. This then decreases to 343 in the SDDC proof of evidence to
the Housing Round Table session (SDDC/HRTS/REBUTTAL/1).
4.1.47 GOEM object in principle to the over-allocation on the basis that this is
contrary to national guidance. I agree. PPG3, paragraph 30 is very clear
on this matter. Here it states that “they [the Council] should seek only to
identify sufficient land to meet the housing requirement set as a result of
the RPG and strategic planning processes”. In light of this, I cannot
support any over-allocation of housing land in the Plan.
4.1.48 However, it is not necessary to remove this from the Plan as elsewhere in
my report I have recommended the deletion of the allocation at Willington.
The land on which the over-allocation is made can therefore be retained to
contribute towards meeting a proportion of the shortfall created by the loss
of this allocation. I have built this conclusion into the calculation for the
shortfall in the housing requirement in section 4.11. My recommendations
on the various omission sites in that section are informed by my
consideration of the above issues.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that, with the exception of the figure for new allocations and total
“Dwelling Suppy 1991-2011”, the Plan be modified by updating the figures in
Table 1 and elsewhere in the Plan to accord with those given in the Council’s proof
of evidence to the housing round table session, (SDDC/HRTS/REBUTTAL/1) to give
a base date of 2003.
B. THE SEARCH SEQUENCE AND ITS RESULTS
1 (PPG3, paragraph 35)
85

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
Objections
B29/174R Willington Parish Council
C5/836 Cllr S Taylor
D7/1502 Government Office for the East Midlands
F14/1459 The House Builders Federation
F78/131 & 14R Church of England Diocese of Derby
G7/1282 William Davis Ltd
G10/1527 & Redrow Homes (Midlands) Ltd
228R
G21/996 David Wilson Homes North Midlands
G10/1530 & Redrow Homes (Midlands) Ltd
1531
G216/1146 RMC (UK)
G217/1392, Roy Williams and Company
1393
G243/1399 Bryant Homes, David Wilson Estates, Miller Homes
(East Midlands)
G253/262 Countany Ltd
G258/1366, Miller Homes (East Midlands)
191R
H4/1362 Hanson Quarry Products (Europe) Ltd
H66/74R
The H K Wentworth Group
J466/146 Mr Colin Parsons & Mr Joe Bailey
J503/1046 Mr K Ayton
J621/70R Mrs D Stringer
J627/86R J M Lowrie
J643/83R I M Lowrie
J645/246 Mr J W Poultney
J651/77R Mrs J Stevens
J660/78R Mr J Stevens
J750/256R Mrs M Albutt
J773/284R G S Armson
J781/253R J & B Hurt
J867/141R Mrs S J Roddis
J870/126R Andrew Whittingham
J902/53R Valerie Shelton
J906/128R Graham W Savage
86

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
J907/129R S M Savage
J943/36R Mr Keith Crocker
J949/57R S M Strangwood
J951/75R G E Hugh-Jones
J953/91R Mr B Cumberland
J959/135R W J Burton
J960/133R Mr & Mrs P & S A Smith
J963/255R Miss J H Forster
J966/265R Robert Michael Henry
J980/233R Mrs McClymont (decd)
K26/1110 Trustees of the Melbourne Estate
Issues
a. Whether the Plan’s locational strategy and search sequence produce an
appropriate basis for the housing policies.
b. Whether the primacy of brownfield land should be absolute.
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.1.49 The allocations in the Plan have been derived from the operation of a
search sequence. In this section I draw together objections to the way in
which this process was carried out, the principles behind it, and also the
relative weight given to the various types of site.
General Principles
4.1.50 PPG1, PPG3, RPG8 and the Structure Plan all stress the importance of
developing brownfield sites, and the Plan first of all directs new housing
to them, using a search sequence explained in document CDA27a.
PPG3 advises that the starting point should be the re-use of previously
developed land and buildings within urban areas identified by the Urban
Capacity Study. The Swadlincote UCS identifies a number of such sites,
with a capacity of more than 10 dwellings, and these are listed under Policy H2.
The next category in PPG3’s sequence is “urban extensions”, with finally
sites around nodes in good public transport corridors.
4.1.51 Although paragraph 31 of PPG3 does not attach greater or lesser weight to
any of the 5 sustainability criteria, the general thrust and spirit of PPG3
does seek to promote the redevelopment of previously-developed land.
This is particularly notable in paragraph 32 which states that the
presumption will be that previously-developed sites should be developed
before greenfield sites. This presumption does, however, come with the
caveat that previously developed sites should not be allocated where these
perform so poorly in relation to sustainability and the other criteria in
paragraph 31 that this should preclude their use for housing.
4.1.52 Despite pre-dating the March 2000 version of PPG3, the Structure Plan also
places considerable emphasis on the redevelopment of previouslydeveloped
land. Indeed, at paragraph 3.78 it is stated that “there will be a
87

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
general preference for building on previously-developed sites first”.
However it is accepted that brownfield sites will not be able to
accommodate all the housing land requirements in the Derby sub-area,
and the Plan contains some greenfield allocations there.
4.1.53 Some of the objections are clearly based on the fact that SDDC has not
gone on to identify more housing land than is needed to meet the
Structure Plan’s strategic requirements. However, PPG3 makes it clear
that Councils “should not extend the search further than required to
provide sufficient capacity to meet the agreed housing requirement”.
The application of the search sequence shows that there is no need for any
greenfield allocations or development in the Swadlincote sub-area and no
need for any, other than sustainable urban extensions, in the Derby subarea.
There was therefore no reason to continue the exercise of allocating
land once the requirements have been met in accordance with PPG3’s
search sequence.
Urban Capacity Study
4.1.54 An objector argues that it is perverse not to allocate non-brownfield sites
within settlements, with greenfield land on their edges being preferred. It
is said that “Tapping the Potential” identifies “vacant land not previously
developed” as an appropriate category for a UCS, but it is claimed that
reference to brownfield land in Policy H1.A(I) does not make the best use
of urban land. The objector suggests that the policy be amended to permit
full use of vacant and backland sites within settlements.
4.1.55 While a UCS should identify such areas, it does not follow that they should
then be allocated for housing. As there is enough brownfield land within
the Swadlincote sub-area to accommodate its housing requirements, there
is therefore no need to allocate non-brownfield sites identified in the UCS.
However I agree that they would be sequentially preferable to greenfield
sites on the edge of settlements. Given the adequacy of supply from
brownfield sites, there is no need to amend the policy as suggested.
4.1.56 Another objector says that no justification is given for excluding sites which
have been identified in the UCS, but in fact the explanatory text to Policy
H2 says that some of the identified sites are more suitable for other uses.
Moreover, in my consideration of objections to Policy H2, I recommend that
some sites which were allocated after being identified in the UCS should be
deleted because of uncertainty regarding deliverability.
4.1.57 An objector says that there is insufficient data in the UCS to enable its
findings to be tested, and that it is unclear how it has had regard to the
availability, viability and deliverability of sites. Nevertheless, other
objectors have found it possible to examine the identified sites in detail,
although I agree that SDDC’s consideration of the realism of allocations
was not robust.
Urban Extensions
4.1.58 In accordance with PPG3, the identification of housing allocations in the
88

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
Plan should be based on the sequential approach. Due to the predominantly
rural nature of South Derbyshire, very little land is available within the first
category. Thus, when identifying land to deliver the strategic housing
requirement it is necessary to look to the next sequentially preferable
option – urban extensions.
4.1.59 It is my understanding that the combined effect of paragraph 32 (i.e. the
presumption in favour of development on previously developed land) and
paragraph 30 (i.e. the sequential approach in PPG3) is to produce a twotiered
strategy, which should first seek to identify previously developed
urban extensions for housing development which best meet the criteria in
paragraph 31 of PPG3. And then if no previously developed sites exist, or
the sites identified perform “so poorly” in relation to the criteria in
paragraph 31 so as to preclude their development for housing, or there are
other overriding considerations which dictate that the site should not be
allocated, then the search should turn to greenfield urban extensions.
4.1.60 It is at this point that there is a divergence of opinion on how the
sequential approach should be implemented. The objections broadly fall
into 2 categories: (a) the methodology used to determine the locations for
development, and (b) how this methodology should have been interpreted
to result in housing allocations in the Plan.
4.1.61 The approach adopted by SDDC is outlined in CD/A27a. Paragraph 14
states that “there is no suitable available previously developed land for
allocation within or on the edge of Derby City or Melbourne, and therefore
SDDC looked to other previously developed land within the sub-area which
was located within and on the edge of the Serviced Villages, and that was
well related to the City so as to conform with GDSP3 and H4 of the
Structure Plan”. The following paragraph in CD/A27a highlights the factors
taken into account in determining the location of the main allocations in the
Derby sub-area.
4.1.62 One objector argues that greater emphasis should have been placed on the
larger settlements in the District, in particular Melbourne and locations on
the edge of Derby. In support of this view, reference is made to paragraph
13 of PPG13 which states that “to promote more sustainable patterns of
development and make better use of previously developed land, the focus
for additional housing should be existing towns and cities”. It is contended
that the housing allocations do not comply with this guidance as they focus
housing development in villages instead. Thus the objection raises the
question: should brownfield sites on the edge of the Serviced Villages be
given preference in the sequential approach over greenfield sites on the
edge of larger urban areas?
4.1.63 The inclusion of the Serviced Villages within the search for brownfield urban
extensions provides the widest possible scope for the identification of
appropriate sites. However, this does not necessarily mean to say that all
such sites should be allocated. After identification, all potential sites must
then be subject to the test, set out in PPG3, of whether the site performs
“so poorly” in relation to the criteria in paragraph 31 that it should not be
developed.
Principles Behind the Location of Allocations
4.1.64 There is very little directional steer in the Structure Plan, other than that in
Housing Policy 17, which allocates 6,500 dwellings to the north of the
89

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
District “including provision on the periphery of Derby”. While this implies
the allocation of a proportion of housing land on the periphery, it does not
specify the amount, nor establish where on the periphery it should be
located. There is nothing in the Structure Plan which seeks to prioritise this
location, nor is there any indication that the “periphery of Derby” means
“the edge of the built-up area”. That said, locations on the edge of Derby
clearly benefit from close geographical proximity to Derby as a service and
employment centre. They are likely to be beneficial in terms of reducing
the travelling distances for those that wish to commute to Derby for work,
education or leisure purposes etc.
4.1.65 Accessibility and the potential for improving accessibility, to jobs, shops
and services by modes other than the car is a very important consideration.
However, it is just one of the 5 criteria in paragraph 31 of PPG3 and one of
the 7 sustainability criteria in Policy 2 of RPG8. All prospective housing sites
should be considered on their merits in the context of each of the criteria in
PPG3 and RPG8.
4.1.66 An objection to the strategy for Derby sub-area, in that it does not take
enough account of Melbourne as the largest settlement in the sub-area or
make provision for its growth by allocating housing land, is addressed in section
4.11. Indeed I see no reason why the search for greenfield extensions need be
limited to the edges of Derby or Melbourne, rather than to certain serviced villages.
4.1.67 There is an objection to the sustainability of Swadlincote as the main
focus of development when it does not have a railway station. It is stated
that Willington has, and is also close to employment at Burnaston. The
objectors say that Repton is also more sustainable than Swadlincote and
should be the location of new development. However, Swadlincote is the District’s
main urban area and is highly sustainable. Moreover, although there is currently no
railway station, Policy T6 reserves land for one at Castle Gresley. In any event, I
see no reason in strategic terms to concentrate growth in Repton or any such
smaller or less sustainable settlement, especially as this would involve significant
greenfield developments.
4.1.68 Objections to the specific allocations are addressed under the relevant policies;
these include criticisms of the results of the search sequence, and the
interpretation of its criteria, in relation to the allocations concerned. In
general terms, however, it appears to me that the search sequence which
SDDC has used is firmly based on advice in PPG3, and there is no reason
for me to find that this approach was either inappropriate or should not be
applied.
4.1.69 Other objections, made to Policy H1, are on the basis that allocations in
Hilton and Willington do not accord with PPG3’s search sequence, which
emphasizes urban, or urban peripheral, sites and restrict development in
rural areas. I address objections to the specific allocations under Policies
H5 and H6, and to the status of the 2 settlements in section 4.3.
4.1.70 It is clear that some villages can be sustainable locations and in both of the
cited cases there are significant areas of brownfield land within or close to
them. In my opinion the search for development on such sites is not at
variance with PPG3’s advice. The settlements which the Plan regards as
90

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
“urban” have varying levels of population and services. However, I
consider that in principle, the development of brownfield sites within them
or on their edges would accord with paragraphs 30 and 31 of PPG3.
Indeed, paragraph 32 of the PPG emphasises the presumption in favour of
developing brownfield land before greenfield. My opinion, is that in overall
terms, the Plan’s search sequence is soundly based.
4.1.71 Objections to Policy H1’s settlement hierarchy as produced by the search
sequence are addressed below.
Primacy of Brownfield Land?
4.1.72 Development on brownfield land would score highly in PPG3’s search
sequence and this acknowledged importance has clearly influenced the
Plan. A large number of objections make the point that the primacy of
brownfield land should not be absolute and in particular such land should
not be allocated where it is liable to flood or away from services. These
objections were clearly made in the context of the proposed allocation at
Willington power station (Policy H5) and, where they relate specifically to
that allocation, are considered under that policy.
4.1.73 However those which do not make such a specific reference raise a general
point. Paragraph 31 of PPG3 sets out criteria against which allocations
should be considered. One is “the physical and environmental constraints
on development”, and one example given is “flood risk”. Others include
accessibility to services and the capacity of social infrastructure to cater for
the development. Paragraph 32 says that the exception to the
presumption that previously developed land should be developed before
greenfield is where brownfield sites “would perform so poorly in relation to
the criteria listed in paragraph 31 as to preclude their use for housing …
before a particular greenfield site”. It is clear, therefore, that a site’s
brownfield status does not necessarily mean that it would be suitable for a
housing allocation, and the presence of constraints on a brownfield site
may possibly justify a particular greenfield development. I am satisfied
that this thrust has been followed in the Plan. There is no need to alter it
to take account of this general principle.
Location of Employment as a factor in determining Sustainability
4.1.74 One objector promoting the allocation of a site at Repton highlights the
advantages of this location over Swadlincote in terms of the proximity of,
and accessibility to, employment provision. Other objectors have also
indicated that the proximity of employment provision, in particular the
Toyota Plant and the Dove Valley Park, strongly favours the omission sites
they promote. Despite the sustainability benefits that this factor would
undoubtedly bring, I cannot support the distribution of housing land on this
basis alone.
4.1.75 I say this for a number of reasons. Firstly, whilst the location of
employment provision is an important factor, it is not the sole consideration
in determining sustainability. There are a whole host of factors that must
be taken into account including proximity and accessibility to schools,
shops, services, leisure facilities etc. The importance of each of these will
91

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
vary, depending on the personal and/or family circumstances of the future
occupants of the housing. It is for this reason why I support in principle
the use of a sustainability matrix to inform the housing allocations. This
approach takes into account a wide range of variables rather than simply
relying on the location of employment as the determining factor in the
distribution of new housing development.
4.1.76 Secondly, although an extremely significant employer, the Toyota Plant
does not represent the only employment provision in the District. There
are other major employers in and adjacent to the District, in particular at
Derby and Burton. Proximity and access to these locations will also have a
bearing on sustainability.
4.1.77 Finally, locating housing near to employment provision does not necessarily
guarantee that those living in the new housing will work at the nearby
employment site or even reduce travel to work times. This is especially
true where there is one large employer or a group of employers with similar
types of jobs. Whilst there is a strong likelihood that a proportion of future
residents of a housing development near the Toyota Plant, or other
employment centres, may find employment there, this would not be the
case for all. Furthermore, it is possible that the employment uses may
seek to relocate, leaving the housing isolated.
Redevelopment of employment sites
4.1.78 Following on from the last section, it is appropriate to consider here
objections relating to the redevelopment of existing employment sites.
These have 2 contrasting positions. One is that employment sites should
be protected and that a cross-reference to Policy EMP3 should be inserted
into this part of the Plan. The other is that redevelopment of employment
land to provide housing should be given priority, particularly where these
are well related to the services and facilities available nearby. It is argued
that such sites are preferable to windfalls.
4.1.79 There is clearly a need to balance the competing objectives of
concentrating housing development on previously developed land and
retaining well-located and appropriate employment uses. I believe that the
Plan achieves this balance through Policy EMP3, perhaps the more so if my
recommendation regarding the latter policy is accepted. Whilst the
redevelopment of brownfield land is to be supported as an objective, this
should not necessarily take priority over all other considerations.
Appropriate and well-located employment uses can have a major bearing
on the delivery of a sustainable form of development, which in some cases
should override the general preference for locating new housing on
previously developed land. In this respect, a general statement of support
in Policy H1 for the redevelopment of employment uses for housing would
not be appropriate. Furthermore, for the reasons outlined above, I agree
that it may be appropriate in certain circumstances for it to be
demonstrated that there is no continuing need for an employment use
before permitting residential development. I therefore support the retention
of this element of the explanatory text.
92

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
4.1.80 Nor do I see a need to cross-refer to Policy EMP 3 in the Plan’s Housing
Chapter. The Plan needs to be read as a whole and all relevant policies
taken into consideration in determining development proposals. The same
logic applies to policies relating to the protection of the environment. With
this in mind I see no particular reason for a cross-reference to any of the
policies in the Environment Chapter.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that no modification be made to the Plan.
C. THE USE OF SUB-AREAS
Objections
G171/1099,
218R
J S Bloor (Measham) Ltd
G253/258 Countany Ltd
J645/246 Mr J W Poultney
J466/145 Colin Parson & Joe Bailey
Issues
a. Whether allocations and monitoring should continue to be on the basis
of the Derby and Swadlincote sub-areas.
b. Whether Repton should be in the Derby sub-area.
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.1.81 Some objectors argue that the Plan should not be based on the 2 subareas
(in 2 cases they wrongly believe that there are 3 sub-areas) and that
the monitoring of completions, and hence the identification of shortfalls,
should involve smaller areas. In regard to this last, it is suggested that
any action taken to bring forward additional land under “PMM” should
occur when poor performance in more local areas is recognised.
4.1.82 As I have already noted, the use of 2 sub-areas is carried forward from the
Structure Plan, which splits the District into the Derby and Swadlincote
sub-areas in terms of the required provision of housing land. Using any
other basis would make it impossible to assess compliance with the
Structure Plan’s policies. I also consider that using smaller areas as
the basis of PMM would be open to the distortion which inevitably
results from variations in development rates in small areas. I see no
reason to use different areas to allocate housing land or monitor rates of
development.
4.1.83 An objector argues that Repton should be within the Derby sub-area, rather
than Swadlincote. This objection is clearly in the context of a requirement
to develop some greenfield land in the first, but not the second. However,
the plan of sub-areas in the Structure Plan shows that Repton is within
93

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
the Swadlincote sub-area, as indeed are Hatton and Hoon parishes, which
on plan appear more anomalous. There is no basis for unilaterally altering
the Structure Plan’s sub-areas, with the consequent need to recalculate land
requirements and provision.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that no modification be made to the Plan.
D. THE SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY
Objections
C1/28 Mark Todd MP
E21/192R Innogy
E26/1007 Church Commissioners for England
G7/1283 William Davis Ltd
G171/1099, J S Bloor (Measham) Ltd
218R
G240/62 & 18R Westbury Homes (Holdings) Ltd
G253/259, 264, Countany Ltd
63R, 64R
G304/1159 Honormead Schools Ltd
K26/1101 Trustees of the Melbourne Estate
J98/1412 Trustees of the Trusley Settlement
J100/1419 Harpur Crewe Estate
J484/1330 Mr D Coaster
J503/1046 Mr K Ayton
J508/568 Executors of H E Bird
J517/1194 Mr R Walmsley
J645/245 Mr J W Poultney
J753/410 Mr T Thompson
J814/528 Mr & Mrs A H Blackwell
J878/1310 Mr W Roper
J882/1305, 40R Mr R Cooper
J919/1151 Mr & Mrs F & E A Atkinson
J965/206R Mr I Cooper
Issues
a. Whether the settlement hierarchy is an appropriate basis for policies on
the distribution of housing land.
94

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
b. Whether there should be provision for some development in all
settlements
c. Whether there should be specific policies for housing on rural brownfield
sites
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.1.88 Besides addressing windfall housing sites, Policy H1 also establishes a
settlement hierarchy. In this section I consider objections raised to the
principles behind the hierarchy, the process which led to its production, and
the implications for land outside the identified settlements. Specific
objections relating to the status of individual villages are considered in
section 4.3.
4.1.89 Policy H1 follows national and regional guidance by directing new housing
to settlements with a good range of community facilities and good public
transport connections, in order to reduce reliance on the private car.
SDDC contends that the concentration of development in the towns and
large villages across the District will lead to the achievement of sustainable
growth, particularly in relation to public transport, and will reduce the
pressure to develop greenfield sites. I support this general strategy.
SDDC has applied PPG3’s search sequence to the identification of new
allocations and in my opinion it is also appropriate to apply the principles
of sustainability to windfalls.
The Settlement Hierarchy
4.1.90 As to whether the Plan should refer to settlements or parishes, I am firmly
of the opinion that a policy based on the former is more appropriate. If it
referred to parishes, then this would imply that development within the
whole of the parish area would be sustainable. This would not necessarily
be the case and could in practice lead to inappropriate and/or unsustainable
forms of development.
4.1.91 The policy establishes a settlement hierarchy, under which there is more
provision for windfall developments in the most sustainable settlements. In
principle, it permits housing on any brownfield land in the boundaries of
Swadlincote, Melbourne and 14 named villages. Development opportunities
were then considered in and adjacent to these settlements in accordance
with the guidance in PPG3. The RDDLP defines these as “Serviced Villages”
rather than “sustainable” in the DDLP.
4.1.92 The RDDLP introduces two additional categories. Policy H1.A(III) covers 20
“other villages”, where housing will be limited to no more than 2 dwellings
on brownfield sites to fill gaps in an otherwise built-up frontage, and to
residential conversions of buildings where commercial use is not practicable
or viable. In 14 “rural settlements”, Policy H1.A(IV) permits only such
conversions.
95

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
4.1.93 These 3 categories have been arrived at by a “sustainability audit” which
uses a matrix to assess the availability of a range of services, scoring them,
then ranking settlements in order of the total scores. Account is also taken
of population weighting, and there is a reduction if the local school is
overcrowded. The scores range from 41.7 to 0. The break point between
“serviced” and “other” villages was based on the result of a Section 78
appeal relating to a site at Egginton, which the Inspector found compared
unfavourably with larger villages. Egginton was then established as the
benchmark, with villages scoring higher than its total of 26.5 being
classified as “Serviced Villages” and subject to Policy H1.A(II). A further
appeal, concerning an appeal at Rosliston, resulted in this village being
upgraded to a “Serviced Village”.
4.1.94 The use of the sustainability matrix to establish which, out of a range of
settlements, should be categorised as Serviced Villages has invoked a
number of objections. The selection of the cut-off point under which
settlements with certain scores fall outside this definition is particularly
controversial. In general terms I agree that a settlement hierarchy is an
appropriate means of identifying the most sustainable settlements and of
providing for, and controlling the amount of, windfall development while
maintaining the Plan’s basic strategy. I also support the approach of
comparing the facilities in the various settlements to assess relative
sustainability, against the background of housing requirements being
largely met by the operation of the search sequence and the consequent
need for limited windfall development.
4.1.95 One objector says that the weightings which produce the hierarchy should
take into account the number and range of individual services and the size
of foodstores, instead of a score being based just on the presence of a
particular service. This objection was in the context of Melbourne, which
would still remain high in the hierarchy if the objection were sustained.
However, I consider that in the case of smaller settlements it is right to
base the scoring on the presence of a particular service, rather than on
their numbers or size. For example, it would be wrong for a village with 4
pubs and no other facilities to be scored higher in terms of sustainability
than one which had one pub, but also a post office and school.
4.1.96 It is also felt that not enough account is given of the sizes of settlements,
which can determine their ability to assimilate growth. However, the
SDDC’s matrix takes population size into account and gives it a weighting.
4.1.97 Nevertheless, I have reservations about the relative weightings assigned to
particular facilities, especially as these are then used to produce the
hierarchy and so to affect levels of development to be permitted. The
actual weightings given appear to be arbitrary and based on subjective
judgements. For example, I am not aware of any justification for the
weighting attached to the different elements of sustainability identified in
the assessment matrix.
4.1.98 SDDC’s exercise has given high weighting to shops, primary schools and
good levels of public transport. I agree that settlements which have all 3
would score highly in terms of sustainability, but Egginton and Walton-on-
Trent, which have all 3, are classified as “other villages”. Newton Solney
96

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
is also in this classification; it has retail facilities, good public transport
and an infant (rather than a primary) school; on SDDC’s system, this
reduces its relative score by 3.
4.1.99 There are also some anomalies, such as Walton-on-Trent, which at 27.8
actually scores higher than the benchmark, but is still an “other village”.
Its score is 0.7 less than the serviced village of Rosliston; this is because
of the lack of a sports ground and a petrol filling station, and despite
having a higher population and better road access. I consider that a
division on this basis is difficult to defend. Moreover the dividing point
separates settlements with very similar scores.
The Dividing Point
4.1.100 The difficulty comes in deciding how a dividing point should be
determined, and in this respect I have sympathy with SDDC. There is no
overarching definition of a “Serviced Village” against which the
settlements in the District could be evaluated. Indeed, this is a local issue,
to be determined at the local level, in the context of the local area
4.1.101 In my opinion, the assessment of which settlements can be regarded as
“Serviced Villages” would be better based on the presence of a minimum
range of facilities, rather than an arbitrary scoring system even though, as
SDDC says, no alternative has been produced. At the least, I consider
that a “Serviced Village” should possess a foodstore (which may also be a
post office), a primary (or infant) school, and a good level of public
transport. Account should also be taken of accessibility to employment
opportunities and to services in nearby settlements.
4.1.102 This approach will not provide the same level of mathematical clarity as
the sustainability matrix and will rely to some extent on subjective
judgements. However, I believe this disadvantage is outweighed by the
benefit gained from taking into consideration a larger range of factors and
the wider interpretation of the sustainability merits of each settlement
which this will facilitate. Furthermore, in my view, this represents a more
logical approach to defining sustainability than attempting to sum the
arbitrary weighted values attached to each of the facilities. I do not
sustain an objection which seeks to include the weightings assigned to
each village within the Plan. I believe that grouping the settlements into
‘bands’ is much simpler and clearer than ordering them. As such, I am
not satisfied that ranking the settlements would provide any advantages
in the application or interpretation of the policy.
4.1.103 In relation to Egginton, one objector points out that there are two pubs on
the edge of the settlement, which, if they were included in the matrix,
would result in the village being defined as sustainable. This particular
objection is not technically correct, since the presence of one or more
pubs would only add one point to Eggington’s sustainability ‘score’, which
would not be sufficient to elevate it above Ticknall in the rankings.
Nevertheless, this objection highlights one of the wider shortcomings of
the assessment, in that it takes into account only those services and
facilities available in the settlement itself and not those situated beyond,
97

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
but close to, the village limits. Nor is account taken of other sustainability
factors relating to the location of the settlement in the District.
4.1.104 I also share some objectors’ concerns about using appeal decisions to
establish a break point within the hierarchy, based on results of the
scoring exercise. It is not clear to me whether the evidence presented to
those Inspectors included a comparison of facilities and services in all
villages, which would have enabled an objective assessment of relative
sustainability. Moreover, the Egginton appeal related to a greenfield site
and I am not satisfied that there would not have been a different result in
the context of a concentration on brownfield development. The Rosliston
appeal related to a single dwelling; the Inspector found that the level of
facilities in the village did not justify refusal on the grounds of
sustainability. It cannot be assumed that this finding would have been
the same for a larger scheme, or be translated to other settlements.
Indeed, I have not been referred to any other appeal decisions related to
settlements higher up the rankings.
4.1.105 Leaving aside my reservations about the actual weighting and scoring
system used, I consider that SDDC‘s exercise has produced an artificial
break point to create its hierarchy. I cannot support the assessment of
sustainability based purely on the matrix. In my view, there ought to be a
stronger, more robust distinction between the settlements in Part A(II)
and Part A(III) of Policy H1. The sustainability audit provides a useful
starting point for this, but it should not stand in isolation as the only
determining factor in defining which settlements are deemed sustainable.
While I do not recommend express modifications to the Plan in the light of
my concern, I consider that the Council should explore applying a more
objective means of categorizing settlements, which, in turn may result in
the identification of additional “Serviced Villages”.
4.1.106 The division between settlements subject to subsections (III) and (IV) is
more defensible on the basis of the low levels of facilities involved. One
anomaly is Foston which scores 6.1 because of good public transport and
road access, while it has no community facilities at all. I accept that it is
properly a “rural settlement”, while Long Lane, also scoring 6.1, is
correctly classified as an “other village”, as it has a school, church and
public house.
Subsequent Changes to the Hierarchy
4.1.107 Some objectors point out that a hierarchy is not static, but take the view
that once facilities have been lost, they are unlikely to be revived in the
future. I agree that the loss or provision of services, or changes in public
transport routes or frequency, can reduce or increase a village’s
sustainability. Where minimum basic facilities are involved, this can cause
the classification of villages to alter. The objectors point out that there is
provision in Policy H10 for a review of information, which may then justify
changes in the applicability of that policy. They suggest a similar review
of the settlement hierarchy every 5 years. I am not convinced that a firm
timescale is necessary, but I agree that the basis of the policy’s
classification should be kept under review.
98

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
Provision for Development in all Settlements?
4.1.108 The final sub-issue raised in relation to the housing distribution strategy is
whether the housing requirement should be concentrated on a few large
sites or spread throughout the District on a number of smaller allocations.
One argument is that delays in development can produce a shortfall in
meeting strategic requirements, but such a situation could be addressed
by a PMM system.
4.1.109 As discussed above, SDDC’s approach has been to focus housing on
previously developed land in line with the sequential approach. This has
led to the allocation of several large previously developed sites throughout
the District. In principle I see nothing untoward with this approach. The
allocation of large sites creates a critical mass of residents which can
assist in financing associated infrastructure and social provision, such as
affordable housing.
4.1.110 That said, the benefits derived from allocating large housing sites should
not in my view override the principles of achieving the most sustainable
form of development. Clearly, the provision of infrastructure and services
as part of a development will itself impact on the sustainability of a site.
The derived benefits, along with all other factors influencing the
sustainability of each potential housing site, should be taken into account
in determining which locations should be allocated. I see no particular
reason to advocate priority to either large or small allocations. The
overriding consideration is which site(s) represent the most sustainable
option in making up the shortfall in the housing requirement.
4.1.111 Some objectors are concerned about the erosion of rural services caused
by changes in population characteristics of villages. This produces a loss
of customer base, and is usually associated with growth in car ownership
and decline in public transport. They say that the type of development
permitted in the lower parts of the hierarchy is overly-restrictive and will
continue this decline in services and not help to retain them. It is claimed
that Policy H1 would prevent limited development in settlements which
are large enough to generate requirements for housing, especially for
the elderly and first time buyers. Various objectors promote new
housing, including small and affordable dwellings and conversions, to
secure the future of services. Some want an amended policy for provision
in all settlements, some just in all Serviced Villages, while others would
permit housing in all settlements where it can be shown that it would respond to
local needs, be well-related to the settlement and provide facilities which
would reduce trips by private cars.
4.1.112 Another objector argues that development in the villages listed in
Policy H1.A(III) should not be limited to brownfield land or narrow infill
plots. All should have defined development boundaries and the policy
should be amended to permit housing within them, subject to criteria to
protect aspects of visual and residential amenity.
4.1.113 These objections go further than the modifications in the RDDLP. The
latter now provide for at least some level of limited development in all
named settlements, to avoid stagnation, and go some way to meet
99

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
objections to the DDLP’s embargo on any development in some villages.
However, providing enough new housing to create a “critical mass” to
either secure existing services or encourage new ones, could involve
significant growth. This would be contrary to the Plan’s strategy of
directing housing to the most sustainable settlements.
4.1.114 I support the Council’s approach. There are only limited services and
facilities available in the smaller settlements. Consequently, there is a
strong likelihood that residents of future housing developments would be
heavily reliant on private transport for even basic services and facilities.
As such, provision for any significant amount of development, in either the
District, or within a particular category, would be contrary to national
planning policy. On this basis I do not believe that it would be appropriate
for the Plan to offer support for significant additional development in the
less sustainable settlements in the District.
4.1.115 Conversely, some objectors seek to return to the DDLP’s principle of
restricting development to the previously defined “sustainable
settlements”. However, I consider that the introduction of the 2 additional
categories in the RDDLP adequately balances the promotion of sustainable
development with the need to avoid stagnation and decline of the smaller
settlements. Moreover, the policy in the RDDLP deals exclusively with
windfall development as opposed to the more general ‘Sustainable
Settlement Hierarchy’ policy in the DDLP. In my view, this change of
emphasis improves the policy and provides a more practical framework for
the determination of development proposals. Accordingly therefore, I do
not favour the reinstatement of the DDLP policy, the identification of
sustainable settlements, or the inclusion of references to the tests in
paragraphs 30-32 of PPG3 in the policy, beyond what is already said in
the explanatory text.
4.1.116 In view of the availability of housing land in the Plan area, there is no
need to consider providing additional land outside many
settlements, even if physically well-related to them, or permitting
greenfield development within them. I see no merit in extending
Policy H1, either as suggested, or beyond the scale of development
envisaged in the various categories.
Rural Brownfield Land
4.1.117 Some objections relate to land outside development boundaries which is
claimed to be “brownfield”, and hence which would perform well in any
search sequence. However, PPG3 excludes land which was previously
developed, but where the remains of any structure or activity have blended
into the landscape in the process of time (to the extent that it can reasonably
considered as part of the natural surroundings) from the definition of
“previously developed land”. Also excluded is land which is, or was,
occupied by agricultural buildings. In many cases, the objection sites
actually fall within one of these categories, and so are “greenfield” land.
4.1.118 An objector says that there may be areas of brownfield land within
settlements but which are not infill sites. He suggests that the text of
Policy H1.A(III) be amended to permit residential development within “existing
100

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
residential areas” shown on the Proposals Map, subject to the
protection of significant amenity areas, the character of the settlement
and of residential amenity. This amendment does not relate to “Serviced
Villages” and would extend to land other than the brownfield sites
referred to in the objection. My conclusions on this point are the same as
those on objections promoting development in all settlements and the
delineation of development boundaries for them.
4.1.119 One objector contends that the redevelopment of previously developed
land should be allowed where this is accompanied by a comprehensive
development brief and would bring the site back into positive use. Clearly,
each case should be considered on its merits, but it is unlikely that
locations outside the serviced villages would be appropriate for housing
development. Indeed, despite the priority attached to the redevelopment
of brownfield land, the caveat in paragraph 32 of PPG3 is likely to apply in
the non-serviced villages, or in other isolated locations. According to this
guidance, priority should not be attached to the redevelopment of
brownfield land in such settlements as they generally perform so poorly in
relation to the first criterion of paragraph 32 of PPG3.
4.1.120 Some objectors promote development in depth in existing gardens, in
addition to the Plan’s provision for infill sites on frontages. However this
could take development beyond the framework of settlements, as
established by the existing patterns of buildings. This could be
detrimental to the character of the particular settlement. I see no merit in
identifying development of this nature as an appropriate category of
brownfield development in “other villages” or “rural settlements”.
4.1.121 Objection J878/1310 is conditionally withdrawn subject to further
changes to the RDDLP policy. The objector, Mr W Roper, argues that
the Plan fails to deal with rural brownfield sites and seeks to amend
Policy H1 to address them. He suggests that they should be dealt with
on an individual basis, where the most appropriate use would
encourage reclamation without affecting the area’s character or
amenities. To this end he suggests that the policy should encourage
redevelopment of brownfield land outside settlement boundaries subject
to a comprehensive development brief, housing being modest in scale
and limited to that needed to bring the land into positive use. Other
policies of the Plan should not be compromised.
4.1.122 Another objector says that there is no provision for development on
brownfield windfall sites close to Derby. However, the search sequence
shows no such sites on the edge of Derby, and the objector has referred
to none: he proposes to develop the sites of agricultural buildings, so
these do not involve brownfield land.
4.1.123 Other objectors seek policies to permit housing on rural brownfield sites
outside settlements. In some cases where specific details are given, the
sites are some distance away from them, and some involve relatively
modern farm buildings which are currently in commercial use. National
and regional guidance endorses the principle of bringing previously developed
land back into use; this can be sustainable in itself. However it does not
follow that all such land is necessarily appropriate for development, as
101

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
PPG13 explains. In particular this could maintain or intensify
unsustainable levels of travel or use, where the land is in the
countryside. I consider that SDDC’s approach, of permitting
development on certain brownfield sites within settlements, balances the
interests of sustainability with the intention to avoid stagnation of
particular villages. In contrast these objections would give priority to
the re-use of any brownfield land, however unsustainable its location.
4.1.124 In view of the wide range of rural brownfield sites, I consider it is more
appropriate to deal with applications for housing on them on their merits,
rather than formulate a specific policy.
4.1.125 In line with PPG7, the RDDLP refers to the expectation that business reuse
will be sought for rural commercial or agricultural buildings before
considering a change of use to residential. An objection linked to an
omission site containing modern farm buildings used for commercial
purposes opposes this change. The objectors say that the policy is
appropriate in the majority of cases, but that in special circumstances
residential development may be more appropriate, and marketing for
employment purposes should not be required in all cases. If it is needed,
a specific period should be specified. In my opinion the change in the
RDDLP is firmly rooted in PPG7. I see no reason why it should be deleted
or modified, not least to avoid abuse of the provisions for conversion of
existing buildings.
4.1.126 The various objections I consider in this section could lead to significant
levels of development within, or on the edges of, villages or in the open
countryside. As a result, the Plan’s strategy of restricting growth outside
the main urban areas and concentrating on the development of urban
brownfield land would be seriously compromised. I consider that this
could conflict with the Plan’s strategy, and I see no need to amend
Policy H1 as suggested.
RECOMMENDATIONS
I recommend that no modification be made to the Plan.
I also recommend that:
a. Consideration be given to the application of a more objective means of
categorising settlements; and
b. The basis for identifying “Serviced Villages” be kept under review during
the Plan period.
4.2 POLICY H1: DEVELOPMENT OF UNALLOCATED
(WINDFALL) LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES
A. POLICY H1’S CRITERIA AND SCOPE
Objections
102

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
D7/201R, 285R GOEM
F8/12R
National Farmers Union
F10/947 CPRE
G10/ 228R Redrow Homes (Midlands) Ltd
G163/1017 Charterhouse Land Ltd
G171/1099 J S Bloor (Measham) Ltd
G182/156R Hallam Land Management
G221/1124 Hilton Industrial Estate Ltd
G226/1165 Gainsborough Property
G253/258 Countany Ltd
H12/163R Don Amott Caravans Ltd
LJ43/1446 Mrs K Rang
J294/1175 Mrs A Smeaton
J462/1173 Mr J Salsbury
J468/151R Roger Boissier
J497/120R Trustees of J M and E L Harrison
J503/1046 Mr K Ayton
J882/40R Mr R Cooper and the Trustees of Mr B Cooper
J915/1039 Mr R H Perkins
J917/1090, Mr S Frawley
180R & 182R
J919/1151 Mr & Mrs J F & E A Atkinson
J921/1162 Mr F C Hall
J922/1172 Dr H W Joynes
J965/206R Mr I Cooper
Issues
a. Whether the policy should include a criterion permitting housing if well
related to a settlement.
b. Whether the policy should permit housing on greenfield sites.
c. Whether the policy should emphasise the priority of brownfield
development.
d. Whether the policy should permit a larger number of dwellings on infill sites.
e. Whether the policy should have a specific reference to rural housing needs.
f. Whether the policy should include requirements for the provision of
affordable housing.
g. Whether the policy should permit housing if restricted to local employees.
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
103

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
4.2.1 In this section I consider objections raised to the detailed criteria of Policy
H1, and those promoting additions. The principle of the policy’s settlement
hierarchy is addressed in the last part of section 4.2, and proposals to alter
the positions of specified villages within the hierarchy are considered in
section 4.3.
Relationship of new developments to settlements
4.2.2 A number of objectors point to an inconsistency between Structure Plan
Policy GDSP3 and this Plan’s strategy of limiting development to allocated
sites and to brownfield land within settlements. Amongst other things,
Policy GDSP3 requires new development to “be located within or wellrelated
to settlements”. However, it is clear that this policy was formulated
against the background of advice in a previous edition of PPG3, whereas
the current version gives priority to housing on previously developed
land within urban areas. RPG8, which postdates the Structure Plan, has
the same emphasis. In the light of this strong and recent national and
regional guidance, the provisions of Policy GDSP3 do not outweigh the
Plan’s strategy, which is derived from this guidance.
4.2.3 In any event, Policy GDSP3 does not imply that all land well-related to settlements
is thereby acceptable for development. Other criteria include respect for
patterns of open land within and between settlements, effective use
of brownfield land, and avoiding prominent intrusion into the
countryside. These could even rule out development which would be
“well-related to settlements”. I therefore see no conflict between
this Plan’s strategy and Policy GDSP3’s requirements for the location of new
development. Moreover, I do not consider that the policy should contain any
implication that the acceptability of a development only derives from its location in
relation to a settlement.
4.2.4 Other objectors follow a similar theme, but in relation to brownfield land
which adjoins a development boundary. One says that Policy H1 excludes
development of such areas and suggests that it be reworded to refer to
“any brownfield land within or immediately adjacent to the boundary”.
Another says that conversions on the edges of settlements can be
intensively used to create housing.
4.2.5 As the purpose of development boundaries under the policy is to delineate
those areas within which new housing on brownfield land would be
acceptable in principle, rather than to define built-up areas of settlements,
it appears to me that any appropriate areas of brownfield land next to
existing housing areas of Serviced Villages would already be included within
development boundaries. Indeed, my attention has only been drawn to
one example where this is not the case, and in that instance, my
recommendation is that the development boundary be extended to include
it. In these circumstances, I consider that the suggested rewording is
unnecessary.
Size of infill developments
4.2.6 Policy H1.A(III) limits the size of development on brownfield sites in
specified villages to 2 dwellings. An objector seeks a variation to permit
104

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
up to 4 to be built on such sites. In my opinion the provision for 2
dwellings on brownfield sites in acknowledged poorly-serviced settlements
adequately balances the need to avoid stagnation with that to locate
development in the most sustainable locations. Increasing the number
of dwellings to be permitted on such sites would in my view erode the Plan’s
strategy.
4.2.7 Moreover, an infill site large enough to accommodate 4 dwellings is likely to
involve a significant open frontage. Providing for such areas to be
developed could well harm a small settlement’s rural character. This is a
further argument against the proposed change.
Development on greenfield land
4.2.8 An objector seeks to vary the policy so that it does not prevent
development on greenfield sites below a certain threshold, and suggests 5
dwellings or 0.25ha. He argues that there are opportunities for infill or
rounding-off developments within or on the edges of a wide range of
settlements. He also believes that there is no provision for “windfall
sites” in the housing figures and that it is unreasonable to expect
applicants to examine all brownfield land before justifying greenfield
developments. The DDLP had a specific requirement for applicants to
complete a search sequence before housing on greenfield land would be
permitted. This was deleted from the RDDLP and replaced by a requirement
in PolicyH1.B for them to demonstrate the lack of suitable brownfield sites.
I do not consider that this change has materially affected the objection.
4.2.9 The housing figures which inform the Plan clearly make provision for
windfall sites, and Policy H1 specifically addresses them. However, these
are brownfield sites, as PPG3 says that there should be no allowance
for greenfield windfalls. The Plan clearly follows national guidance in
giving priority to the development of brownfield land. In my opinion,
the threshold suggested by the objector could result in a significant amount
of development on a large number of greenfield sites, materially eroding the
Plan’s strategy. This could also significantly harm the character of the
particular settlement.
4.2.10 I see no justification for such a departure from national guidance. I take
the Council’s point that Policy H1.B envisages a time when there may be
inadequate brownfield land for development, but it appears to me that
this point may well not be reached in the Plan period.
4.2.11 A specific objection to the DDLP sought a clear statement presuming
against development on greenfield land; section H1.B has been inserted
into the RDDLP as a response, and employs the objectors’ suggested
wording. Another objector seeks the deletion of Policy H1.B, arguing that it
envisages development of greenfield windfall sites, when PPG3 says that
there should be no such allowance. To my mind the Plan makes no
allowance for development of such sites, in that no provision for them is
made in Table 1. Policy H1.B clearly addresses only exceptional
circumstances and, in my opinion, would only have restricted applicability.
Be that as it may, Policy H1 deals with windfall sites and I agree that it
would be preferable if there was no indication that greenfield windfall sites
105

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
could, even in exceptional circumstances, be appropriate for development.
This would be contrary to PPG3’s guidance. I consider that Policy H1.B
should be deleted.
4.2.12 A number of objectors have expressed concern that the requirement in
PolicyH1.B for applicants to examine all brownfield sites as part of the
justification for greenfield development is unreasonable. Another claims
that the section would prevent greenfield extensions to Derby. And there is
criticism because of the absence of a definition of “suitable brownfield site”.
I have some sympathy with these concerns; they add further weight to the
conclusion in the preceding paragraph. I do not consider that this part of
the Policy should have made it clear the monitoring required under Policy
H1.B should be on the basis of each sub-area rather the District as a whole.
I have already indicated that I find the Plan’s monitoring arrangements
adequate.
4.2.13 The Plan clearly does give priority to the development of brownfield land.
And, although this is not explicit in Policy H1, it is clearly seen in the
introduction to the Housing chapter and in Policy H1’s explanatory text. I
see no need for the inclusion of a specific reference to this established
principle in the policy.
4.2.14 One objector proposes that the policy should promote development on nonpreviously
developed ‘white land’ within defined settlements. I do not
agree. Some forms of ‘white land’ are identified as sources of housing land
in ‘Tapping the Potential’, but in terms of the sequential approach, there is
no distinction between ‘white land’, such as non-previously developed
backland sites, and greenfield sites. I see no reason therefore to offer such
sites any priority or special status.
Rural housing needs
4.2.15 Some objectors say that Policy H1 should be redrafted to make specific
provision for housing in rural areas, and consider that changes in the
RDDLP still fail to address PPG3’s guidance. The latter recognises that
there will be a continuing need for housing in rural areas, and indicates that
new housing in villages can be appropriate where this would support local
services, especially where a development plan identifies the village as a
local service centre. PPG7 and RPG8 make similar points, as does
Structure Plan Policy H3.
4.2.16 This does not mean that there should be provision for housing in all
settlements, however unsustainable. The terms of the amended policy in
the RDDLP ensure that some development could continue in the rural parts
of the District. I see no need therefore for a specific reference to the
housing requirements of rural areas.
4.2.17 Some objectors say that the Plan has no strategy to meet rural housing
needs; it relies on large scale proposals which are not capable of meeting
these needs. It is suggested that the Plan should make specific proposals
in the “Serviced Villages” to meet local needs, whether market or
affordable housing. This point is similar to those which suggest allocations
in all villages; this is addressed above.
106

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
4.2.18 An objector seeks a specific reference that brownfield development in
villages should reflect their capacity to accommodate new housing.
However, the settlement hierarchy is clearly based on the availability of
services in particular villages, and the levels of development to be
permitted in each is clearly derived from this assessment. It is implicit that
the capacity of the existing settlements to accommodate new housing has
informed the details of the policy.
4.2.19 Another objector seeks the deletion of the phrase “while new housing
development is considered generally inappropriate in the countryside” from
the explanatory text. He feels that this could lead to confusion over the
definition of “countryside”. However I agree with SDDC that this phrase,
which restates a basic planning principle, is accurate and is not confusing.
Affordable housing, etc
4.2.20 I address the issue of affordable under Policy H10. That policy
addresses both allocated or windfall sites, and “exception sites”, where
housing would not generally be permitted. Policies are not always
mutually exclusive, and, in my opinion, there is no need for a specific
reference to affordable housing in Policy H1.
4.2.21 Other objections seek to add criteria, such as encouragement of local
employment and services, reintroduction of public transport, and the use of
sustainable energy. However these matters, and the promotion of
increased density, are also addressed by other parts of the Plan. I see no
need to include them in Policy H1.
Housing for local employees
4.2.22 In the context of Sutton-on-the-Hill, an objector seeks an amendment
to Policy H1 to permit housing on sites well-related to existing settlements,
where it could be shown that they will be for employees at local centres of
employment and where travel would be reduced as a result. He argues
that Sutton is close to villages where there are services, and to
employment centres. He says that it should be recognised that in
some parts of the district private cars are the only form of transport
available.
4.2.23 I agree with SDDC that the existence of employment facilities in a general
area does not justify housing near them if their locations are
unsustainable. However, the objection goes further than this, and
seeks to provide housing specifically for those employed nearby. While
this would be a superficially attractive suggestion, it would not in my
view justify locating housing for such persons in settlements, either
where they would have to travel to work by car, or where there are
inadequate facilities to cater for their, and their families’, day-today
needs. Moreover compliance with any such occupation restrictions would
be difficult to enforce, and may even result in residents having to cease
occupation if they stopped working nearby.
107

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
Other matters
4.2.24 An objection is raised to the statement in the Policy’s explanatory text in
the RDDLP that “the conversion of isolated barns to residential use does not
aid sustainability”. The text goes on to say “.. as the occupants are likely
to have to rely on the private car for all journeys”. Insofar as isolated
buildings are concerned, I see nothing untoward in either of these
comments.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Plan be modified by the deletion of Policy H1.B and the
related explanatory text.
B. HOUSING: DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES
Objections
B21/210R Repton Parish Council
G7/1282 William Davis Ltd
G253/258 Countany Ltd
H12/163R Don Amott Caravans Ltd
J98/1412 Trustees of the Trusley Settlement
J645/244 Mr J W Poultney
J882/40R Mr R Cooper
J961/131R Avril Skipper
J982/269R Polly Faulkner
Issues
a. Whether the role of development boundaries is adequately explained.
b. Whether settlement boundaries should be replaced by criteria-based
policies.
c. Whether all settlements should have development boundaries.
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.2.25 Policy H1’s explanatory text adequately explains the rationale behind the
detailed definition of development boundaries and the role which they are
intended to fulfil. The lines of the boundaries generally accord with
curtilages, but where new development would protrude into the
countryside, the boundaries may cut through them. In my view, this is
an appropriate way of protecting the countryside from intrusive
development.
4.2.26 Some objectors oppose the proviso in the DDLP that housing under Policy H1
must also accord with other policies of the Plan, arguing that this could
restrict development on potentially sustainable sites. This requirement has
been deleted from the RDDLP. However the introduction to the Plan still points
out that “several policies may be applicable to a particular proposal. Part of the
108

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
process for determining planning applications will, when necessary, require each
policy to be weighed in relation to the merits of the proposal.” I find this approach
highly appropriate , as it would be unreasonable for a housing development that
accorded with the Policy’s locational criteria to be approved, regardless of whether
harm would be caused to environment, residential amenity, the area’s heritage and
suchlike. Other concerns may properly be of overriding importance in
particular cases.
4.2.27 Objectors also suggest that all development boundaries be deleted and
replaced by criteria-based policies. I am not in favour of this as it appears
to me that this would introduce a considerable degree of uncertainty into
the application of policies relating to Serviced Villages; disputes could well
arise about the suitability of land for development. I consider that
development boundaries are essential to clearly identify the areas covered
by the policy. This is far less likely to occur in “Other Villages” and “Rural
Settlements” where the restricted nature of development which may be
permitted would be less likely to create uncertainty.
4.2.28 A number of objectors seek development boundaries around all
settlements subject to Policy H1.A(III) and (IV) and to permit housing
within them. Such development would be subject to criteria, including
protection of the settlement’s character and residential amenity. The policy
in the RDDLP permits small infill developments on brownfield sites in defined
“Other Villages” (III) and restricts residential development in defined “Rural
Settlements” to conversions of existing buildings in some circumstances
(IV). I endorse this general approach, which envisages a level of
development commensurate with the nature of the settlements concerned.
4.2.29 Some objectors clearly seek development on greenfield land and promote
development boundaries specifically to include such land. However, the
terms of the policy, which restricts housing to brownfield land within the
named villages, would prevent such housing even if there were a
development boundary.
4.2.30 There is concern about possible disputes over the definition of “infilling”,
which some objectors say can be resolved by delineating development
boundaries. However, the definition is clear, and in my opinion is
reasonable in the context of the overall strategy of directing development
to the most sustainable settlements. As subsections (III) and (IV) clearly
relate to small brownfield sites, I do not consider that it is necessary for the
settlements concerned to have development boundaries to define the areas
involved. Indeed, I take SDDC’s point that delineation of boundaries
around H1.A(III) and (IV) settlements may include areas too wide to be
infill sites, or gaps which comprise greenfield land. This could then give an
unreasonable expectation that development could occur on them.
4.2.31 In my opinion, the policy strikes a fair balance between the Plan’s
strategic aims for sustainable development and the provision of small
numbers of new dwellings in the villages in question. Defining
development boundaries to enable housing within all villages, to
specifically include greenfield sites, would seriously compromise the Plan’s
strategy and increase unsustainable patterns of development. This would
109

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
be the case even with the suggested safeguards. I do not support the
suggested amendments to the policy.
4.2.32 One objector questions whether development should be directed only to
locations within, or ‘in and on the edge of’ settlements with defined
boundaries. It is contended that there may be some sites on the edge of
settlements that would be more sustainable than others located within the
built-up area. In such situations, it is argued, it would be sequentially
preferable to develop on the edge of the built-up area. Whilst, in theory,
this approach appears sensible and consistent with national guidance, the
value of such a change to the Plan depends on the definition of the
settlement boundaries.
4.2.33 In the explanatory text, the Plan states that “where extensions have been
made they comprise previously developed land only, the redevelopment of
which would not have an adverse impact on the character of the
countryside”. I believe this approach, i.e. the inclusion of suitable
previously developed land within the settlement boundary, is far clearer
and simpler to implement than one which would enable development on the
edge of the built-up area.
4.2.34 An objector seeks the inclusion of the allocated housing sites within the
appropriate development boundaries. It seems to me that it is the usual
practise for such boundaries to reflect the intended position at the end of
the Plan period, rather than at the time of adoption, and I consider this
ought to be the case in this case. Unless this is done, it could be argued
that any further development within the allocation sites would be subject to
policies relating to the countryside. I am sure that this is not what the
Council intend.
4.2.35Finally, my impression is that many objectors appear to have been
misunderstood the relevance to development boundaries, namely that they
are in place to define the geographical area within which certain policies will
apply. The inclusion of land within a settlement boundary does not
necessarily mean that all development proposals are thereby acceptable.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend the Plan be modified by the inclusion of all housing allocations within
the appropriate development boundaries.
4.3 HOUSING: APPROPRIATE CLASSIFICATION OF VILLAGES
Objections
B12/150 Foston and Scropton Parish Council
B21/209R Repton Parish Council
E26/1007 Church Commissioners for England
E38/200 The National Trust
G21/996 David Wilson Homes North Midlands
110

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
G226/1127,
1166
Gainsborough Property
G243/1399 Bryant Homes, David Wilson Estates, Miller Homes
(East Midlands)
J454/1236 Mr G J Perry
J484/1330, 82R Mr D Coaster
J491/646 Mr H Hiatt
J504/211 J D Deakin and Sons
J508/568 Executors of H E Bird
J517/1194 Mr R Walmsley
J538/547 David Pruden & Patricia Bullen
J814/528 Mr & Mrs A H Blackwell
J816/535 Mr & Mrs Gibson
J882/1305 Mr R Cooper
J918/1129 Kevin F Ellis
J919/1151 Mr & Mrs J F & E A Atkinson
J921/1162 Mr F C Hall
J926/1457 Mr D Edwards
J961/130R Avril Skipper
J965/206R Mr I Cooper
J982/268R Polly Faulkner
Issue
Whether Policy H1 appropriately classifies certain settlements as “Serviced
Villages”, “Other Villages” or “Rural Settlements”.
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.3.1 I address the means of producing the policy’s settlement hierarchy in
section 4.2 above. Notwithstanding the reservations I have expressed, I
find the Council’s fundamental approach accords with national and regional
guidance and the aims of sustainable development. A number of objectors
promote variations in the hierarchy, in most cases to upgrade particular villages to
“Serviced Villages” in Policy H1.A(II). Such an upgrade would then require
the delineation of a development boundary. One objection promotes the
reintroduction of development boundaries for all the villages which had
them in the adopted Local Plan, but this is in the context of the provisions
of the DDLP, which prevented development except in “Sustainable
Villages”.
111

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
4.3.2 Policies H1.A(III) and (IV) of the RDDLP provide for the possibility of at
least limited development in a wider range of settlements and go some way
to meeting a number of objections. To my mind, the changes included in
the RDDLP balance the need to avoid stagnation with the protection of the
Plan’s strategy. It does not imply the complete embargo on any
development in some settlements, a concern which generated some of the
objections to the DDLP.
4.3.3 An objection opposes the omission of Barrow upon Trent from the list of
Serviced Villages, saying that there is insufficient affordable and low-rise
housing in the village for the elderly and disabled, who have to move away
to find housing. Although the village has a school and good public
transport, it has no food shop and so does not possess what I believe to be
the minimum range of facilities to be considered as a “Serviced Village”.
4.3.4 Some objectors say that Church Broughton is large enough to generate a
local requirement for housing, and that it is well placed for employment centres.
They argue that it is unreasonable to prevent necessary development
because of inadequate public transport. It appears to me that the range
of facilities is limited and that residents have to travel elsewhere for dayto-day
needs. Accordingly the village cannot be regarded as a “Serviced
Village”. In my opinion, it is properly subject to Policy H1.A(III) and
there should be no development boundary.
4.3.5 Although there are significant employment centres in the general area, I
consider that it would breach both national and regional guidance, and the
Plan’s strategy, to make specific provision for new housing knowing that
it would not be served by public transport and be away from many
community facilities. With regard to local needs housing, the objectors
have demonstrated neither the nature of any need, nor how it could be
ensured that new housing would continue to meet needs arising from the
village.
4.3.6 In relation to Coton-in-the-Elms, objectors argue that national and local
policies do not preclude development in rural areas and that the village
has a range of local services and facilities. It is said that some activities
can be carried out there without the need to travel and it has good access to local
employment, including by public transport. It is claimed that employment
facilities are better than in Rosliston, the nearest “Serviced Village”, which
has a lower population. It is said that excluding Coton from the
hierarchy would preclude development which would meet local housing
needs and support local services.
4.3.7 The objections relate to the classification of the village as “unsustainable”
in the DDLP. There is concern that restrictive policies will erode the
village’s population base and threaten the school’s viability; some objectors
say that public transport services and pedestrian routes to Rosliston are
poor. They deny that the village is declining; there are new baby and
toddler and pre-school groups and the local pubs are well-supported. The
village is said to be sustainable even though its shop has closed, with at
least 15 new dwellings being built since the last Local Plan, some outside
the 1985 boundary.
112

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
4.3.8 The RDDLP now describes Coton less pejoratively as an “Other Village”,
which compares with the ”Serviced Villages”, which are provided with
development boundaries. It appears that the objectors are unaware that
“Other Villages” now have no such boundaries, basing their objections on
the line shown on the adopted plan.
4.3.9 Coton has several public houses, a school and community centre, but it has
no shops and few employment facilities, and I agree with SDDC and some
of the objectors that public transport is not good. I also agree that the
level of new housing needed to support additional services would have
to be significant; this would not accord with the Plan’s strategy. In
these circumstances, I consider that it is appropriate to identify the village
as being subject to Policy H1.A(III). I also agree with the Council that
Policy H10D offers an appropriate means for addressing any proposals for local needs
housing.
4.3.10 Objectors oppose Egginton’s exclusion from the list of sustainable
settlements, saying that it has always been an important village and is one
of the few which has retained its community facilities, including a school. It
is pointed out that the village has 2 public houses on the extremity of the
village, which are not included in the weightings in the sustainability
matrix. However, these are some distance away, and not within easy
walking distance of the main body of the village, in which case I do not
criticise the Council for excluding them from its sustainability assessment.
4.3.11 As I have already noted the Council has used an appeal decision relating to a
site in Egginton to determine the “cut-off” point for sustainability and the
application of Policy H1.A(II) and (III). Those villages which score higher
than Egginton are classified as “Serviced Villages” under Policy H1.A(II). I
discuss above my concerns about both the weightings employed and the
use of the appeal decision in this manner. Egginton’s facilities include a
school and a small shop/ post office and the village has good levels of
public transport. In these circumstances, I consider that my
recommended reassessment of the creation of a settlement hierarchy is
likely to involve a reconsideration of the status of Egginton, which could
become a “Serviced Village”. That said, it seems to me that any such
change should be pursuant to, and informed by, such a re-evaluation.
4.3.12 Foston and Scropton Parish Council asks that both settlements in the
parish be reclassified as “sustainable”, to allow the limited development
which both villages need. The term “limited potential for growth” is
preferred. I can understand how the word “unsustainable” could be
regarded as pejorative, but I find the terms employed in the RDDLP
overcome such a concern satsfactorily.
4.3.13 An objector says that Foston is a settlement to which RPG8 Policy 7 applies,
and should be a preferred location for housing and services. This policy
recognises the need for development in rural areas and promotes the
identification of preferred locations for it. However, the principle of
sustainability still underlies the policy. Foston is a small group of houses
with no community facilities, despite having good public transport and
being close to areas of employment. In these circumstances, it cannot
reasonably be regarded as a “Serviced Village”. To my mind its potential
113

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
for growth is very limited. I consider Foston is properly subject to Policy
H1.A(IV), in recognition of this limited potential.
4.3.14 Scropton has more facilities than Foston. But I do not find them sufficient
to warrant the settlement being re-classified as a “Serviced Village” either.
To my mind, potential for growth here is limited too and so Scropton is
properly subject to Policy H1.A(III).
4.3.15 Long Lane has a church, primary school and public house, but it is in the
nature of a hamlet within an extensive area where the settlement
pattern is also one of small hamlets. There are few other community
facilities available for residents within several kilometers. In my opinion,
Long Lane should not be regarded as “Serviced Village”. Nor do I see any
justification for a development boundary, which would imply an
acceptance that the settlement is sustainable in terms of a good range of
facilities and good public transport links. I see no reason why it should be given a
higher status than that identified under Policy H1.A(III).
4.3.16 An objector says that services and employment in Lullington have been
lost in recent years, property prices have increased and there is a lack of
affordable housing for local people, with limited employment
opportunities. Population has declined and the average age increased.
He wishes the village to return to its previous status as one with facilities
serving the local community. He proposes the reinstatement of a village
development boundary.
4.3.17 It is argued that PPG3 and PPG7 do not preclude development in rural areas, that
Lullington is a sustainable village with a range of local facilities and good
access to local employment. It is claimed that there is scope for
development within the village which would accord with the pattern of the
settlement and not harm the countryside. It is proposed that Lullington’s
development boundary should be the same as that of the Conservation
Area.
4.3.18 I consider that Lullington’s relative remoteness, its restricted level of
services, and limited public transport make it an appropriate subject of
Policy H1.A(III), and that it should not therefore have a development
boundary. Moreover, that proposed by the objector would extend well
beyond the present built-up area and could provide for a level of development
which would erode the rural setting of both the village and
Conservation Area. I welcome his desire to re-establish the village as
a service centre, but I consider that the additional population needed
to support, for example, a shop, would involve significant levels of
unsustainable growth which would still rely heavily on private cars.
4.3.19 An objector seeks to provide a development boundary for Milton, as in the
adopted Local Plan, to allow limited infilling and conversions. The RDDLP
defines Milton as an “Other Village”, subject to Policy H1.A(III). It has no
shop, school or public transport, and cannot reasonably be regarded as a
“Serviced Village”, which would have a development boundary. There is,
however, a public house, as well as a village hall which neither the objectors
or the Council mention. It seems to me that the objection seeks the facility
114

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
for small scale development; this is now envisaged in the RDDLP policy, as
far as brownfield land is concerned.
4.3.20 Other objectors however, seek to downgrade Milton so that it becomes
subject to policy H1.A(IV), where only conversions would be permitted,
with no provision for brownfield infilling. Some also seek a development
boundary specifically to restrict infilling. These objectors describe Milton
as a hamlet, rather than a parish, in that it has no church. It is argued
that larger villages with more services and public transport, such as
Newton Solney and Walton-on-Trent, have been described as
“unsustainable”, while Milton with only a pub, and no bus service in the
last 50 years, is included in the same category.
4.3.21 Because of its size, character and lack of facilities it is suggested that only
conversions should be permitted in Milton. Indeed, some objectors say
that there are no, or possibly one, brownfield sites within the development
boundary shown on the adopted plan, and so no need to provide for them.
Conversely, another objector feels that infill development may be possible
on up to 4 sites to the south, and that this could detract from the hamlet’s
rural character without encouraging the provision of new services. To avoid
this, it is suggested that the adopted boundary be reinstated.
4.3.22 I describe my concerns about the details of the settlement hierarchy above,
and refer to the same larger villages as do these objectors as warranting a
re-examination of their classifications. In terms of population, Milton is
midway in the settlements subject to Policy H1.A(III), and larger than all
but one subject to H1.A(IV). I accept the Council’s point that it is also
close to the serviced settlement of Repton. In these circumstances, I
consider that its classification in the RDDLP is not unreasonable.
4.3.23 There are some very few brownfield sites where infill development may be
acceptable in principle. In any event, details of development on such sites
must still comply with Policy ENV21, to ensure that it would not harm the
character of its surroundings. Moreover, the Council specifically amended
the DDLP in response to many objections which argued that, if all new
housing were prevented, smaller villages would stagnate and existing
services become unviable. Indeed, some objectors, when arguing that
Milton has very few services, suggest that the pub may be unviable; to my
mind such a circumstance tends to justify a policy providing for more than
conversions. I see no reason to downgrade Milton.
4.3.24 An objector argues that Newton Solney is sustainable, as bus services to
Burton and Derby are good. Sustainability involves more than good public
transport and, by reference to the level of its existing facilities, the
Council argues that the village is less sustainable than many other
settlements. However, it has a shop and a school, and appears to have the
minimum level of facilities which could warrant the reassessment of its
status. As I have already indicated in the case of Egginton, any such change
should be pursuant to, and informed by, such a re-evaluation of the
settlement classification.
4.3.25 An objector seeks to provide a development boundary for Stanton-by-
Bridge, as in the adopted plan to allow limited infilling and conversions.
115

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
The RDDLP defines Stanton as an “Other Village”, subject to Policy
H1.A(III). It has no shop or school and I see no reason why it should be
regarded as a “Serviced Village”, which would have a development
boundary. However, it appears that the objection seeks the facility for
small scale development, and this is now envisaged in the revised policy
contained in the RDDLP.
4.3.26 Sutton-on-the-Hill has only very limited community facilities. In my
opinion, it is properly subject to policy H1.A(III). I see no justification for
its classification to be changed to a “Serviced Village” or for it to have a
development boundary.
4.3.27 An objector seeks the deletion of Ticknall from the list of Serviced Villages
because it is in a Conservation Area and because there are few brownfield
sites available. I do not agree that such a change is warranted. The policy
identifies those locations which are considered sustainable and capable of
accommodating a certain proportion of development. On this basis, even if
there were no brownfield sites available in Ticknall at present, it would still
be appropriate for the settlement to be identified within the list.
4.3.28 In any event, inclusion within a Conservation Area does not necessarily
preclude development, although there is a statutory requirement for
decision makers to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or
enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas when
considering planning applications. I find this sufficient to satisfy the
objector’s point that any development which does take place in Ticknall
should enhance the Conservation Area.
4.3.29 An objection opposes the omission of Weston-on-Trent from the list of
Serviced Villages, saying that it has a common access for work, leisure and
shopping as Aston-on-Trent, which is a Serviced Village, and shares the
same public transport system. The objectors ask that Weston should have
its own service centre, with a new school. Although the village has a school
and good public transport, it has no food shop and so does not possess
what I believe to be the minimum range of facilities to be considered as a
“Serviced Village”. These are provided in Aston, about 1.5km to the north.
In my opinion, Weston is properly subject to Policy H1.A(III).
4.3.30 An objector seeks to add “Derby suburbs” to the list of settlements in
Policy H1 in the context of his suggestion to allocate various sites for
housing. He does not specify the particular suburbs, but there are
two large areas of existing housing, at Stenson Fields and Boulton Moor, which
could come within that description. While they lie within South Derbyshire District,
they are, in effect, extensions of estates within Derby city. These 2 areas have no
notations or development boundaries on the Proposals Map, and so technically are
subject to policies appertaining to the countryside, albeit I very much doubt
whether this was intended. The built-up parts of the fringes of Derby are not
villages but to my mind location-wise , they are highly sustainable locations. In
particular, Stenson Fields is close to the large Sinfin district centre and both the
areas I refer to are next to allocations in the Plan. This strongly suggests to me that
the Council must regard these locations as being sustainable.
116

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
4.3.31 It seems to me that development of any brownfield sites within these 2
areas would accord with the principles of Policy H1.A(II). It would be
appropriate to provide each with a development boundary to facilitate such
development and to make a specific reference to them in Policy H1.A(II),
either by adding them to the list of named settlements, or by providing a
separate section in the policy. I recommend accordingly.
4.3.32 If, however, the objector is referring to areas within Derby city’s boundary,
such as Mickleover, then they are outside the area covered by the Plan and
their inclusion in the policy would not be appropriate. In any event, where
the policy names particular settlements, it only permits development on
brownfield land within them; this does not include the particular objection
sites which he is promoting.
4.3.33 An objector is concerned that named villages, especially Hilton and
Willington, are included in Policy H1. However, both have a range of
retail and community facilities as well as good levels of public transport;
Willington also has a railway station near the village centre. In these
circumstances I consider that it is appropriate to identify them as “Serviced
Villages”.
RECOMMENDATIONS
I recommend the Plan be modified by the provision of development boundaries
around the existing housing estates at Stenson Fields and Boulton Moor and that
an appropriate reference be included in Policy H1A.
I further recommend that the Council consider whether at least Egginton and
Newton Solney should be reclassified as “Serviced Villages” subject to policy
H1.A(II), and be provided with development boundaries
4.4 POLICY H2 : BROWNFIELD SITES WITHIN THE URBAN AREA
Objections
D7/200R
Government Office for the East Midlands
F10/948 CPRE
F14/49R
The House Builders Federation
G171/1100 J S Bloor (Measham) Ltd
J468/1183 Roger Boissier
&152R
(Most of the objections that have been recorded under this heading seek
the allocations of various sites for housing. They are dealt with as part of
the housing omissions in Section 4. )
Issues
a. Whether sites with planning permission should be identified.
b. Whether the scope of the urban capacity study should have been expanded.
c. Whether there should be a non-implementation allowance.
d. Whether the word ‘brownfield’ should be deleted from the Policy
117

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
e. Whether certain sites are capable of being delivered.
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
Allocated sites with planning permission
4.4.1 I have some sympathy with GO-EM’s claim that it is unnecessary to identify
sites with planning permission in Table 2. However, I also understand the
Council’s concern that omitting the sites in question could cause some
confusion. Whilst neither party’s approach would have a major bearing on
the Plan, the annotated table in the SDDC does make the position clear. I
am not satisfied therefore that the objector’s concern is sufficiently
compelling to warrant a modification to the Plan on this basis.
Urban Capacity Study
4.4.2 While supporting the policy in principle, CPRE make the proviso that the
urban capacity study should have identified all possible brownfield sites
across the District. “Tapping the Potential” makes it clear that the scope of
a UCS can include rural areas. However, most of the settlements not
covered by the UCS are small and I agree that it would be unrealistic to
identify all possible brownfield land allocations in all settlements. A more
comprehensive exercise might have made the Council better informed, but
notwithstanding the encouragement given to the re-use of previously
developed both nationally, regionally and at County level, other
considerations still have to weighed into the balance. With the possible
exception of Melbourne, I consider that the provision for development of
windfall sites in Policy H1 would adequately cover the development of such
land. From what is before me, therefore I am not satisfied that the absence
of a District-wide urban capacity study seriously impairs the efficacy of the
plan or that the policy needs to be amended.
Non-implementation allowance
4.4.3 I have already considered the HBF’s objection regarding a nonimplementation
allowance, which is directed at both this policy and Policy
H1 in my consideration of the latter. In the light of my conclusions at I am
not satisfied that such a measure is needed.
Reference to ‘Brownfield’
4.4.4 After saying “the following brownfield sites …. are allocated”, the policy
then contains a list. The objectors seek to delete “brownfield” from the
policy but did not amplify their reasoning. However, as the title of the
policy is not challenged and refers specifically to brownfield land, I cannot
see that the objection would achieve any different result.
Deliverability
4.4.5 Roger Bossier’s objection is based in the premise that not all the sites
identified under the policy may be deliverable during the plan period. To
my mind, the constraints referred to in the explanatory text, and alluded to
in Table 2, create a degree of uncertainty which lends strong support to the
objector’s concern. That said, the Housing Topic Paper (CD A27) notes that
planning permission has been granted on one of the sites, land north of
Sunnyside, Newhall (policy reference H2A) and it is deleted in the RDDLP.
4.4.6 Although the annotation in Table 2 indicates the nature of the constraints
that affect Sites H2C and H2D, neither the objector, nor the Council have
118

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
elaborated on their precise nature and extent. The Council indicate that the
constraints are not insurmountable and say there may be several ways of
overcoming them, but give no indication of just what a prospective
developer would have to do. I am mindful that access problems were
apparently overcome on the land north of Sunnyside. Nevertheless, in the
light of the question marks that hang over Sites H2C and H2D, I am not
satisfied that it can be said with confidence that there is a reasonable
prospect that either would yield the number of dwellings envisaged during
the plan period. I find the degree of uncertainty that attaches to these sites
is such that they should not be included in the Plan as specific housing
allocations. On this basis therefore, I recommend that they be deleted.
4.4.7 The objector also raises concern about the likely contribution to housing
supply from site H2E, land at Hastings Road, Swadlincote, in the light of the
additional annotation in Table 2 and the references to “topographical
constraints and TPOs” inserted into the explanatory text. I am told that as
the land is being developed in phases following the grant of outline
planning permission, in which case the origin of the 29 dwellings referred
to in the DRRLP is not clear. I saw that about 14 dwellings have been
completed or are in the course of construction on this site, although it was
not clear whether all were in the allocated area. And, the remaining land
has a number of protected trees on it, which could well affect the number
of dwellings which could be built. Without details of the planning
permissions on the site, the objector’s concern that the full figure of 29
may not be deliverable may well be well founded. Nevertheless, the
absence of any firm evidence from the objector makes it difficult for me to
conclude conclusively that the Council’s figure is incorrect and that a lower
figure ought to be substituted.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend the Plan be modified by the deletion of sites C and D from Policy H2
and the consequent amendment to Table 2.
4.5 POLICY H3: WOODVILLE WOODLANDS
Objections
A2/769 Leicestershire County Council
C1/29 Mark Todd M P
C2/51 Cllr A M Jones
C5/834 Cllr S Taylor
D7/1504 Government Office for the East Midlands
E35/984 The National Forest Company
F10/949 CPRE
F14/1465 The House Builders Federation
G20/938 David Wilson Estates
G171/1102 J S Bloor (Measham) Ltd
G243/1431 David Wilson Estates, Miller Homes (East Midlands) &
Taylor Woodrow
G306/1202 George Wimpey UK Ltd & Repton School
G309/1274 Tapton Estates Ltd
119

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
H18/1217 & Dyson Industries
1344
H53/1227 Roger Bullivant Ltd.
J794/494 Alan Jones
J818/541 & 572 M J Stevenson
Issues
a. Whether the allocated site is previously-developed land as defined in PPG3.
b.Whether the allocation is too large for Woodville.
c. Whether the allocation would result in an over-provision of housing in North
West Leicestershire? Whether a comprehensive development brief is
required to cover land in the two Districts.
d.Whether the allocation should be for mixed-use development.
e. Whether traffic generated by the development of the land will harm Albert
Village.
f. Whether the Swadlincote Regeneration Route will be built; and whether the
suggested line and details of the route are acceptable.
g.What effect the New Albion waste disposal site would have upon future
residents of this area.
h. Whether the policy adequately addresses National Forest, landscape and
nature conservation matters.
i. Whether the policy adequately addresses the educational needs of Woodville.
j. Whether the number of dwellings proposed will be delivered within the Plan
period.
k. Whether the scale of the affordable housing requirement is appropriate.
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.5.1 The explanatory text to the policy states that the site ‘comprises derelict and
reclaimed industrial land’. Such land is ‘previously-developed land’, as
defined in PPG3, and that definition includes land within the curtilage of the
former development. There is no substantial evidence before me sufficient to
call into doubt that the land allocated under H3 is anything other than
previously-developed land.
4.5.2 The allocated site is large in relation to the overall size of Woodville. But, in
the light of the housing requirement for the Swadlincote Sub Area during the
Plan period and the search sequence adopted by the Council for identifying
suitable sites for housing, I consider the size of the allocation acceptable.
4.5.3 The site lies adjacent to the county boundary with Leicestershire.
Notwithstanding earlier proposals for housing on both sides of the boundary,
it appears that no new housing is now to be built on adjoining land in North
West Leicestershire District. I understand that both neighbouring District and
County Councils are working in close liaison to ensure that there is a coordinated
approach to the redevelopment of this area. There is no
substantial evidence to demonstrate that the local authorities involved have
not been adopting a comprehensive approach. Furthermore, planning
permission has now been granted for the first phase of housing on the
allocated site and those properties are in course of erection. As such, I do
120

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
not consider that there needs to be a specific reference in the policy to the
preparation of a comprehensive development brief.
4.5.4 Tapton Estates Ltd has requested that the allocated land be designated for
mixed-use development, so as to ensure that the various uses proposed are
appropriately integrated and to allow for flexibility in the way the land is
developed. However, I do not consider such an approach as necessary in
this instance. Areas appropriate for mixed-use designation are generally
either established town centres, suburban centres or local centres highly
accessible by public transport. Woodville Woodlands does not fall into any of
those categories, being an edge of urban-area location with generally poor
transport links. The land is being developed in accordance with a master
plan, thereby obviating the need for a development brief. The scheme will
include clearly defined areas of housing and clearly defined areas for
employment; and, having regard to the character of the area, I regard this
form of development as appropriate.
4.5.5 It is likely that, until such time as the complete Swadlincote Regeneration
Route has been built, traffic arising from the development of Woodville
Woodlands will use the roads through Albert Village, in order to reach
Swadlincote and areas beyond. However, I understand that the
redevelopment of this area has been the subject of a traffic impact
assessment that was considered fully by the highway authorities of both
Derbyshire and Leicestershire. Furthermore, as Albert Village is situated in
Leicestershire and outside the Plan area, it is not possible for Policy H3 to
require any specific remedial measures in respect of roads there, even if
such measures were considered necessary.
4.5.6 I have addressed concerns with regard to the construction and line of the
Swadlincote Regeneration Route under the heading ‘Policy T12’ in chapter 3
of this report.
4.5.7 The New Albion waste disposal site is in Leicestershire, some distance to the
south of the allocated land. I note that neither the Environment Agency nor
the Council’s environmental health officers have raised any objections based
upon the relationship between that site and the proposed housing. As such I
do not regard the presence of the waste disposal site as a serious cause for
concern.
4.5.8 The National Forest Company seeks the inclusion, within requirement (VI) of
the policy, of the National Forest planting guidelines and a reference to the
need for large-scale woodland planting as part of the development of
Woodville Woodlands. However, it is Government policy, as set out in
paragraph D4 to PPG7, that planting or landscaping requirements within an
area such as the National Forest should be directly related to each
development proposal and be no more than is necessary to overcome
planning objections to that proposal. In such circumstances I do not
consider it appropriate for the policy to include a specific reference to the
National Forest’s planting guidelines. The fact that those guidelines may be a
material consideration in determining a planning application is addressed in
my consideration of Policy ENV5 in chapter 2 of this report. Other landscape
and nature conservation concerns can, in my view, be adequately addressed
on the basis of requirements (III) and (VI) of the policy. As such, I do not
consider any modification to the policy to be necessary insofar as National
Forest, landscape and nature conservation matters are concerned.
121

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
4.5.9 The education authority has a statutory requirement to provide school places
for children living within its area. That authority has not identified a need for
a new school in Woodville. Requirement (V) of the policy includes a specific
reference to developers making provision and/or contributions towards
educational needs. This matter is addressed further in Chapter 7 of this
report in relation to community Policy C5. Having regard to each of these
factors, I consider the educational needs of the area will be adequately
addressed.
4.5.10 At the housing round table session, the Council stated that it was not aware
of any reason to doubt that this allocation could be completed within the
Plan period. One objector has suggested that probably only half of the 400
dwellings will be built during the Plan period. But, the first phase of the
development (143 dwellings) is in course of erection and, having regard to
general building rates in the area, I think it reasonable to conclude that the
allocation will be substantially completed during the Plan period.
4.5.11 I understand that the developers’ full contributions towards the provision of
affordable housing at Woodville Woodlands have already been negotiated
as part of a section 106 agreement attached to the outline planning
permission for phase 1 of the development. The development has now
commenced. In such circumstances, the scale of the affordable housing
provision at Woodville Woodlands is fixed, and I see no purpose in giving
further consideration to the matter in the context of this site.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that no modification be made to the Plan.
4.6 POLICY H4: LAND SOUTH OF CHURCH GRESLEY, SWADLINCOTE
Objections
E12/968 Environment Agency
G20/952 David Wilson Estates
G171/1103 J S Bloor (Measham) Ltd
G243/1433 David Wilson Estates, Miller Homes (East Midlands) &
Taylor Woodrow
G305/1179 Samphire Properties Ltd
G306/212R George Wimpey UK & Repton School
H18/1218 & Dyson Industries Ltd
1345
H53/1211 Roger Bullivant Ltd.
J734/363 Mrs Corinne Stackhouse
J808/522 M Davies
J813/526 Mrs Christine Cox
Issues
a. Whether building on a greenfield site is acceptable when brownfield land
remains undeveloped.
b. Whether the number of dwellings proposed will be delivered within the Plan
period.
c. Whether the educational needs of the area will be adequately addressed.
122

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
d. Whether a site that contains two sites of nature conservation importance
should be developed.
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.6.1 Government policy favours the development of previously developed
(brownfield) sites in preference to greenfield sites. However, in accordance
within an allocation in the adopted Local Plan, outline planning permission
for the residential development of this greenfield site was granted in March
2000. Furthermore, that permission is valid until 2010. The development of
this site is, therefore, already a commitment for almost all the Plan period.
In such circumstances, there is nothing served by a detailed consideration as
to whether building on this land is acceptable when brownfield land remains
undeveloped.
4.6.2 On the basis of a completion rate of 60 dwellings per annum the Council
considers that some 477 of the proposed 1,000 dwellings will be built during
the Plan period. At the housing round table session this completion rate was
challenged as being too high. But, on the basis of the annual completion rate
achieved at the Swadlincote Woodlands development over the 4-year period
up to 31 March 2003, I consider the Council’s estimate reasonable.
However, this does mean that more than half of the proposed dwellings will
probably not be built during the Plan period.
4.6.3 The education authority has a statutory requirement to provide school places
for children living within its area. The Council has stated that the planning
permission granted for the comprehensive development of the site includes
facilities to meet education and community needs. In addition, Policy C5
safeguards land at Hearthcote Rise for educational purposes. For these
reasons I consider the educational needs of the area will be adequately
addressed.
4.6.4 I understand that the planning permission that has been granted includes
provision for the protection of the wildlife areas within the site.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that no modification be made to the Plan.
4.7 POLICY H5: WILLINGTON POWER STATION
Objections
The list of objectors to this policy is set out at Annex B.
Issues
a. Whether the previously developed character of this site provides a strong
case of itself for the housing allocation.
b. Whether the proposed housing would be appropriately located with regard to
the site’s urbanness and its accessibility to jobs, shops and services
c. Whether the existing and potential infrastructure is capable of absorbing the
proposed development.
d. Whether the proposed development would be satisfactory in the sense of
building a community.
123

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
e. Whether the flood risk should be regarded as acceptable.
f. Whether other physical and environmental constraints should be regarded as
acceptable.
g. Whether the site should be allocated for some use other than housing and, if
so, what.
h. Whether the construction of a minimum of 950 dwellings as required by
Policy H5(I) is realistic in terms of deliverability.
i. Whether the boundary of the housing site shown on the Proposals Map
should be changed.
j. Whether the housing and employment elements of the overall allocation
should be distributed differently.
k. Whether the requirement stated in policy H5(I) for the inclusion of 300
affordable housing units should be amended.
l. Whether the Willington settlement boundary should be extended to include
the power station redevelopment area.
m. Other matters.
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
Issue a: the previously developed character of the site.
4.7.1 The Council makes much of the previously developed character of
the Willington Power Station site. It is right to do so, for substantial support
is given to the redevelopment of previously developed land by Government
policy. Most notably, PPG3 paragraph 30 says that local planning
authorities’ search sequence for identifying sites to be allocated for housing
in local plans should begin with previously developed land; paragraph 31
indicates that one of the criteria for deciding on local plan housing allocations
is the availability of previously developed sites and their suitability for
housing use; and paragraph 32 says that previously developed sites should
be developed before greenfield sites, unless the former perform so poorly in
relation to the paragraph 31 criteria as to preclude their use for housing
before a greenfield site. The Council is right to claim that a previously
developed site proposed for allocation does not have to perform better than,
or even as well as, a greenfield site. The words “so poorly” are clearly of
considerable importance.
4.7.2 Some objectors, including Willington Parish Council, question
whether the entire site proposed for housing here is, in fact, properly
regarded as previously developed. They point out that by no means all of it
was covered by buildings. But PPG3 Annex C makes clear that what is
defined as previously developed land is to cover the whole curtilage of the
development, ie more than the areas that were covered in the past by
structures and infrastructure. That means, for instance, that the substantial
areas in this case that were used for coal stacking are properly included as
previously developed. Those objectors who contend that the site is not a
124

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
true brownfield site because much of it was open are wrong in my view.
Even if there are small areas of greenfield land within the allocated area, the
“curtilage test” still keeps them within the overall area to be regarded as
previously developed. I see no reason not to regard the site here as
previously developed.
4.7.3 PPG3 Annex C, however, goes on to say that treating the whole
curtilage, properly, as previously developed does not mean that that whole
area should be redeveloped. It cites airfields and hospitals as examples of
previously developed sites that include open land not normally being
developed to the curtilage boundary. It seems to me that this former power
station site can properly be regarded as analogous to airfields or hospitals in
that respect, even though a good deal of the former power station’s open
land may have been contaminated in ways that the open land associated
with former airfields or hospitals tend not to be. That contamination does
not diminish its openness. My assessment is that the Council pays
insufficient attention to the references in PPG3 to the entirety of previously
developed sites not being redeveloped. It is true that not all of the land
owned by the successors of the power station operators is proposed for
allocation in the Local Plan, but the Council’s reasons for choosing the
particular boundaries it has (within the overall curtilage of the former power
station) are not clear.
4.7.4 The previously developed nature of the site is only one factor to be
taken into account in the site selection process. The list of criteria in PPG3
paragraph 31 also includes site location and accessibility, the capacity of
existing and potential infrastructure, the ability to build communities and
physical and environmental constraints. These criteria provide the basis for
some of the other issues that I consider, as do the references to the location
of previously developed sites in or near urban areas in PPG3 paragraph 30
and in Policy 1 of both the approved and revised draft versions of RPG8
(January 2002 and April 2003 respectively). The Council reminds me that
Policy 30 of RPG8 (January 2002) states that previously developed land
should be allocated in development plans in preference to undeveloped land
unless there are exceptional ecological, historical or recreational qualities
that outweigh its suitability for development. The Council contends that this
reinforces the “brownfield first” principle. It does to a degree, but it seems
to me that Policy 30 has to be read very much in the context of a chapter
that provides guidance on the protection and enhancement of natural and
cultural resources. It does not provide a basis for not taking full account of
all the other factors listed as relevant by PPG3. If it did, it would be in
conflict with PPG3. I note also that there is no corresponding policy in the
revised draft version of RPG8 (April 2003).
4.7.5 I conclude that, although the previously developed character of this
site provides a strong case of itself for the housing allocation, it is by no
means conclusive, even bearing in mind the remarks in PPG3 paragraph 32
that I mention above. A wide range of other factors needs to be examined.
Issue b: the location of the proposed housing with regard to the site’s urbanness
and its accessibility to jobs, shops and services
4.7.6 The broad principle of Government policy is that the development of
previously developed land in urban locations is preferable to the
development of the same sort of land in rural locations. The Council regards
Willington as a “Serviced Village” and sustainable, and in practice it regards
125

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
that as giving Willington an urban dimension. So it perceives the area for
allocation as an urban extension. That puts it, in its view, into the second
preference category of PPG3 paragraph 30 and makes it a site suitable for
development in a location adjoining an urban area in terms of RPG8 Policy 1.
4.7.7 I understand the Council’s difficulty in finding prospective
development sites in the Derby Sub-Area that are both previously developed
and urban. The largest settlement – Melbourne – has limited large-scale
redevelopment opportunities and there is only one other major previously
developed site (the former MoD site at Hilton) in the Sub-Area. But the
Council’s criterion for distinguishing Serviced Villages from others (seemingly
to provide a basis for what is urban and what is not) does not seem to rest
on particularly strong foundations, and I comment on this elsewhere.
4.7.8 My impression is that the Council is in fact forced into “making the
best of a bad job” in seeking previously developed land within or – in this
case – on the edge of, as it regards it, a Serviced Village. Some objectors
make the point that the area allocated for housing here does not actually
adjoin the existing settlement and so is not properly regarded as being on
the edge of the settlement or considered as an urban extension. Strictly
speaking they are correct, but the proposed employment area associated
with the housing allocation is only 40 m or so from the existing settlement
boundary and part of the intervening space is occupied by buildings (a scout
hut and a social club) and their curtilages. So my concerns here are more
related, in principle, to what seems to me to be the huge contrast between
the sustainability and urbanness of Willington village and that of the region’s
major settlement, Derby.
4.7.9 I do not regard those points as fatal to the proposed allocation, however.
This is because I believe that more clarity can be gained by considering how
the proposed housing would work in accessibility terms. That is what I
assess in paragraphs 10-21 below.
4.7.10 Willington Parish Council points out that Willington is not a self-contained
settlement. The District Council does not deny this, nor does it make any
attempt to suggest that a larger Willington, with the proposed housing
developed, would be self-contained. Indeed, it would be far from this. The
Local Plan’s allocation at Willington of employment land under Policy EMP1
is not intended to ensure that every worker in the new housing
development has a job at Willington. All secondary school pupils living in
Willington would continue to travel, presumably mainly to the secondary
school at Etwall about 6½km away. Higher order shopping and leisure
facilities would continue to be away from Willington: as now, anyone in the
village needing to shop at a large foodstore or DIY store would have to
travel into Derby or Burton for that purpose.
4.7.11 The Council regards the power station site as pre-eminent in locational
terms because Willington is the only settlement in the Derby Sub-Area with
a rail station, and points out particularly that there are no such stations on
the edge of Derby City. But Willington’s rail station – its claimed unique
“advantage” – is about 1.9km walking or cycling distance from the centre
of the site proposed to be allocated for housing. This has to be set against
the warning in paragraph 2.05 of PPG13: A Guide to Better Practice, which
says that only a small proportion of people will walk distances exceeding
about 1.6 km. The only RPG to have offered guidance on target and
maximum walking distances – RPG 10 for the South West – suggests 800m
126

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
as a maximum walking distance to a rail station. In answer to the
objection by George Wimpey and Repton School, the Council refers to
PPG13 paragraph 75 as saying that under 2 km walking can “reasonably be
regarded as a competing mode of transport”. But what in fact that part of
PPG13 says is that “Walking … offers the greatest potential to replace short
car trips, particularly under 2 kilometres.” That is not the same thing.
Moreover, the Council refers to 2 km being walked in about 20 minutes, but
in my experience only a fairly small minority of walkers would achieve an
average speed of that sort (6 kph; 3¾ mph).
4.7.12 There are already trains from Willington with peak frequencies of one or 2
per hour to Derby, Burton, Birmingham and Nottingham. In addition, there
is spare off-street parking capacity near the rail station. The Council’s
consultants’ survey work indicates some scope among local residents for
greater rail use, notably through more frequent services and reduced fares,
but the local residents are the existing residents of Willington, who all live
closer to the rail station, and are therefore more likely to take advantages
of such changes than the residents of the site the Council wishes to see
allocated. Moreover, there is no suggestion from those responsible for
railway operations that such changes are probable. In addition,
Willington’s rail platforms being 7m above street level (accessed by steps)
and the somewhat off-centre location of Derby’s rail station do nothing to
make rail travel an attractive mode here. It therefore seems to me that
the allocated site’s uniqueness in terms of rail travel is an advantage that is
largely illusory.
4.7.13 Buses would offer more scope than trains for people to travel from the
proposed housing to jobs and higher order services. The nearest existing
bus stop to the centre of the proposed housing site is about 1.1km distant
(for buses to Derby and Burton). RPG10’s maximum distance of 400m to
a bus stop indicates that 1.1 km is far too distant for convenience, but a
local bus operator indicates that a new fast hourly bus service between the
allocation site itself and Derby would be viable between 07.10 and 18.40
hours on Mondays to Saturdays, creating a half-hourly service in
conjunction with the existing service. Even so, the Council’s own
consultants put public transport use in the morning peak period at only
22% by the time the housing site and the associated employment site are
fully developed. I appreciate that they regard this as a conservative
estimate, but the fact that the corresponding figure for Willington residents
now is little below the future 22%, at 18% in fact, perhaps indicates the
scale of the difficulties that this particular proposal faces in achieving
significant change.
4.7.14 This means to my mind that a substantial number of car journeys would be
generated by the residential development proposed here. The Council
suggests, rightly, that car travel for weekly supermarket shopping would be
no different from here than from virtually all new developments. That may
well be, but what matters in that respect is the distances that would be
travelled, so the relative remoteness of the site proposed for allocation tells
against it. With the nearest existing food shop also being distant from the
site (the nearest shop of any kind is about 1.7km walking distance from the
centre of the site), even day-to-day shopping needs would be likely to
result in car journeys in the initial development period before the proposed
allocation site could justify its own local shops.
127

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
4.7.15 To the extent that jobs would not be available within Willington for workers
living there, and I would expect that extent to be considerable, the
Council’s case is that the Toyota factory is within easy cycling distance and
that bus and rail provide for opportunities further afield. The route to the
Toyota factory is not particularly cycle-friendly in my view, particularly in
the need to negotiate the very large A38/A50 interchange. I see little
prospect of rail providing very substantial scope for journeys to work, for
the reasons I have already mentioned above. The major non-car mode for
such journeys would be bus, but that would still be for the minority as I
have indicated above.
4.7.16 It would be wrong to ignore the scope that may exist for improving
accessibility. I have already given my assessment on that in relation to bus
and rail travel. Cycling might be made more attractive by measures that
specifically support that mode. But the site’s disadvantages in terms of
sustainability are those that flow from its relatively distant location from
jobs and higher order facilities.
4.7.17 It is true, as the Council points out, that the sustainability issue is not just
about reducing the need to travel, which they say is important as it reduces
adverse impacts on air quality. But it seems to me that there are other
advantages (time savings, potentially less congestion, etc) in reducing the
need to travel. The Council is right to point out the sustainability
implications of saving major resources such as land for future generations,
hence the policy emphasis on using previously developed land. But to my
mind the proposed allocation in question here would yield potentially
continuing sustainability disadvantages, year on year, that weigh against it
in the overall balance.
4.7.18 I come back to the sort of settlement that Willington is now. The Parish
Council’s survey in April-May 2003 shows that 100% of the village’s
secondary school children are educated outside Willington; 90% of its
workers are employed outside Willington; 99% of respondents do their
weekly food shopping outside Willington, 96% travelling by car. Assuming
the continuation of the present advantages of car travel in terms of
convenience and cost (at least perceived cost) – and I see no justification
for making any other assumption – I consider that the expanded Willington
would not be very different in these respects. It is fundamentally a
commuter village now, and if the proposed housing were to be developed it
would become fundamentally a commuter village twice as big as it is now.
4.7.19 PPG3 paragraph 69 says that only a limited amount of housing can be
expected to be accommodated in expanded villages. Similarly, the
proposed allocation would not sit easily with the advice in the more recent
PPG13 paragraph 13 that “To promote more sustainable patterns of
development and make better use of previously-developed land, the focus
for additional housing should be existing towns and cities.” The same is
true of the allocation in relation to the advice in PPG3 paragraph 15 that
“villages will only be suitable locations for accommodating significant
additional housing where it can be demonstrated that additional housing
will support local services, such as schools or shops, which could become
unviable without some modest growth …”. There is no suggestion of
potential service unviability here, and it cannot be said that Willington
needs the development of the allocated site in that sense.
4.7.20 The case against the Council was well put when it was said that the
128

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
locational advantages of this site for power station use consisted of its
proximity to coalfields, to a railway (for transporting the coal) and to the
River Trent (for cooling water), and that those advantages do not apply
now in relation to Local Plan allocations.
4.7.21 The proposal here seems to be of a size that is, at best, awkward – too
large for the existing social and commercial infrastructure of Willington to
cater for it, and too small for its own social and commercial infrastructure
to provide for a wide enough range of its needs. In answering points made
by George Wimpey and the Governors of Repton School, the Council claims
that the objectors misunderstand their position which was that 60ha
devoted to housing, much more than in fact they intend here, would be
unsustainable. But that must prompt doubts over whether the 27ha of
housing that is intended, and generating less service requirement than a
larger development, would be sustainable. The Council’s argument that the
site’s development “… will facilitate improvements to public transport
access and provision that will benefit existing as well as new residents…”
must be limited by the size of the development proposed.
4.7.22 I conclude, therefore, that there are considerable limits to the
appropriateness of the proposed housing’s location with regard to the site’s
urbanness and to its accessibility to jobs, shops and services. I regard this
as a very major drawback in relation to PPG3 paragraph 31 and RPG8
Policy 1.
Issue c: the capacity of the existing and potential infrastructure to absorb the
proposed development
4.7.23 Objectors raise substantial concerns about the off-site road infrastructure
that would be used by traffic serving the new development, and I deal with
these first.
4.7.24 There are a number of “pinch-points” in the local road network for which
the Council suggests no improvement. Approaching the existing village
from the north on the B5008 road there is a rail level crossing and a
humped-back bridge over the Trent and Mersey Canal. There is limited
forward visibility in both these cases, but bearing in mind existing speed
limits and junction locations I do not believe serious problems would arise
with the additional traffic that would be generated. Approaching the village
from the south on the B5008 road is a bridge over the River Trent with a
7.5 tonne weight limit and then a rail bridge which gives clearance at its
centre of only 3.96m. On the A5132 road between the village centre and
the proposed housing site is another rail bridge with clearance at its centre
of only 3.58m. The restrictions imposed by the river and rail bridges
obviously affect heavy and/or high vehicles and, in relation to this issue,
are more important for the housing area’s associated employment
allocation than for the housing allocation itself. The narrowness of the
carriageway under the A5132 bridge, however, does limit the continuity of
any cycle lane provision along that road, and that relates to some of the
accessibility points I mention in relation to issue b above.
4.7.25 Other difficulties could be subject to some amelioration. The Council
suggests minor improvements, for instance, to the double roundabout at
Willington Cross in the centre of the village (where the A5132 and B5008
roads cross). Although no direct solution to the problems affecting heavy
goods vehicles that I mention in paragraph 24 above is suggested, the
129

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
indirect solution of a route signing strategy is proposed. Other suggestions
put forward by the Council include resurfacing the existing footway along
the A5132 road between the site vehicular access and the nearest part of
the existing Willington settlement, replacing the informal pedestrian route
around the A38/A50 junction with a formal route, providing a shared
pedestrian/cycle crossing on the A5132 road adjacent to the rail station,
introducing advisory cycle lanes from the site vehicular access to Willington
Cross, reducing speed limits on the local road network surrounding the site,
and channel repairs to roads north and east of the site.
4.7.26 The Council also makes the point that some existing pressure on the local
road network could be removed by taking steps to reduce vehicle speeds in
villages (not just Willington) to encourage drivers to re-route to the trunk
road network provided by the A38 and A50 roads. This suggestion is made
in the context of a roadside interview survey in July 2002 showing that
65% of morning peak traffic and 53% of evening peak traffic on the A5132
road next to the proposed housing site had neither trip end in Willington,
and that on the B5008 road between Willington and Repton 62% of
morning peak traffic and 49% of evening peak traffic had neither trip end in
Willington. Even without re-routing, the amounts of existing extraneous
traffic do indicate to me that the fears of some objectors about a doubling
of traffic – simply as a result of a doubling of the number of village
dwellings – are somewhat exaggerated. I do not agree with the suggestion
made by a few objectors that the development site should have its own
access from the A38/A50 interchange: that would be unnecessary.
4.7.27 I am struck by the relatively minor nature of many of these amelioration
proposals, and in many cases by their vagueness. Perhaps the latter is to
be expected at this stage in advance of a planning application. The
Council’s aim is a high one: it claims that the transport proposals
associated with the redevelopment of the power station site would reinforce
the sustainability of the existing community through integrating new public
transport and pedestrian and cycle facilities into a built form that already
exists, together with providing enhanced and safer linkages to the
surrounding transport network and centres of activity. That partly relates
to issue b above, and I say no more on it here. As for issue c, I have
doubts about whether the future is as rosy as the Council appears to claim.
But the Council is still right when it says that virtually no development in
the District could proceed if the test were whether the local road network
meets modern design standards. Instead, the proper question is whether
the roads, as they are now, or as they can sensibly be improved, can take
the development asked of them without unacceptable detriment to safety
or environment. Bearing also in mind that there is no objection before me
related to issue c from either the County Council as highway authority or
the Highways Agency, I conclude that objectors have not shown that the
local road infrastructure cannot absorb the proposed development.
4.7.28 Many objectors fear that other elements of the local infrastructure would be
unable to cope with the new housing development. I am told that
Willington Primary School already operates at 23% above capacity, and
that the secondary school in Etwall attended by village pupils is overstretched.
Some objectors tell me that the local doctor’s surgery could not
cope. Other specific difficulties are mentioned as well, and there is a
widespread fear among local resident objectors that this housing
development would put a major strain on existing facilities and services
130

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
generally.
4.7.29 However, the Plan itself has some important provisions that are relevant
here. Policy H5 itself says that the housing development here is subject to
the provision of and/or contributions towards facilities to meet community,
health and educational needs. The policy also seeks the retention and
future maintenance of the existing playing fields south of the development
site. Policy S6 provides for a new local centre to meet the needs of the
housing development here. Policy LRT4 requires adequate playing space to
be provided and maintained. I see no need for the Plan itself to say more,
or to be more explicit, on these sorts of matters as they relate to this
development. As the Council says, the trigger points for the provision of
new facilities are normally set in undertakings made under section 106 of
the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or in conditions on a planning
permission. The problem is fundamentally one of getting the timing right in
order to avoid undue pressure on existing facilities as the development
proceeds over a period of several years. The Council says it is aware of
past mistakes on timing. However, although there are practical difficulties
in getting it right, and market forces come into play with the provision of,
say, shops in a new local centre, I am satisfied that the Plan can say no
more that is useful on the subject. At worst, there is nothing in the Plan to
prevent facilities being provided in step with the phases of the residential
development.
4.7.30 I note that the Council has had discussions with, for example, the Primary
Care Trust and the Local Education Authority to assess the level of health
and educational need likely to result from the proposed housing
development and options as to how it could be met. I note, too, that it is
the Council’s practice to involve local residents in identifying local needs for
additional community facilities, as a starting point for discussions with
developers normally on receipt of a planning application. On the specific
concerns about primary schooling, the Council makes the points that the
development site lies within the catchment area of Findern Primary School,
that land can be made available for its extension, and that this would allow
rationalisation to overcome the excess of pupils at Willington Primary
School. I see no problem about that so far as this issue is concerned.
4.7.31 My overall conclusion on this issue is therefore that it provides no basis for
rejecting the proposed housing development here.
Issue d: building a community
4.7.32 I have already commented in relation to issue b (at paragraph 21 above)
that the proposal here seems to be of a size that is, at best, awkward. I
add a little here to that remark. Some objectors raise a concern that the
distance of the site from the existing village centre is likely to result in 2
separate village nuclei. I believe that fear has some basis, and indeed the
Plan’s own proposal (at Policy S6) for a new local centre to serve the new
housing development reinforces that. Some suggest that the new residents
would not develop social ties with the existing village. The problem to my
mind is emphasised by the fact that Willington is already a somewhat
elongated village (the area within the Willington settlement boundary in the
Plan extends for over 700m from east to west and for less than half that
distance from north to south), and the proposed development would
emphasise the east-west axis. Moreover, the dichotomy would perhaps be
emphasised by “old” Willington being served by Willington Primary School
131

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
and “new” Willington by Findern Primary School.
4.7.33 I am not satisfied that this provides the best physical framework for
building a community that works well in social terms. It adds somewhat to
the concerns I express in relation to issue b above. Those concerns are not
removed by the Council’s claim that there are existing groups and
organisations within the village that would benefit from new members:
assuming that to be true, I doubt that Willington is in any way unique in
that respect.
Issue e: acceptability of the flood risk
4.7.34 A large proportion of the objections to Policy H5 include concern about
flood risk, that risk being either to the proposed development itself or to
existing development as a result of the proposed development preventing
proper use of the Trent flood plain for unobstructed floodwater flow. Many
of the objectors take their starting point as the Environment Agency’s
indicative flood plain map: that shows the southern third or so of the
combined H5-EMP1 site within the flood plain. Many of the objectors echo
the Government’s policy which is to reduce the risks to people and the
developed and natural environment from flooding. The Environment
Agency itself objects to the First Deposit Plan on the basis of the absence of
a strategic flood risk assessment.
4.7.35 In a letter of February 2003 the Agency refers to withdrawing this objection
on the strength of revised wording of Policy ENV13 in the RDDLP. I
consider that 2 things need to be said about that at the outset. The first is
that this withdrawal clearly depends on the Council modifying the Plan in
the way the Agency wants: that must be regarded as a conditional
withdrawal, meaning that the objection remains before me, and I do not
accept the Council’s apparent view that the objection is unconditionally
withdrawn (and therefore not before me). Secondly, I note that Policy
ENV13 in the RDDLP says basically that, without satisfactory compensatory
measures, development will only be permitted where it will not increase the
risk of flooding or be at risk itself from flooding. Notwithstanding what the
Agency has said about the connections between Policies H5 and ENV13, I
believe a realistic view must be that if the Agency has concerns in these
respects when considering a planning application for the power station site
redevelopment in the light of its knowledge at that time, it would have little
hesitation in objecting to a grant of permission. This seems to be
particularly important as knowledge about the likely extent of flood risk was
in a state of some flux during the course of the inquiry, and may well have
changed further since or would do so before a planning application would
come to be considered.
4.7.36 In a subject bedevilled by considerable uncertainty, one thing is very clear
to me. That is that the Agency’s indicative flood plain map does not
indicate the true extent of the flood plain here. That must be so because
the boundaries of the flood plain on the map do not follow ground contours.
PPG25 makes clear that these maps are subject to revision; they are to be
used as a basis for consultation and not as the sole basis for decisions on
where planning policies apply.
4.7.37 Another matter is also clear to me, although my view on it does not accord
with that of many objectors. My assessment is that there is no substantive
evidence that the proposed development site has been subject to fluvial
132

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
flooding from the Trent in the past. Photographs are submitted in evidence
showing flooding in recent years, but I am satisfied that that flooding is not
shown as extending into the site. It is also evident that some instances of
flooding in recent years may well have been due to inadequacies in local
land drainage, including surface water drainage from highways. It is
equally evident, however, that there has been fluvial flooding close to the
site in a number of recent years.
4.7.38 Estimates of probabilities for the future evolved during the inquiry, partly
as a result of some objectors’ technical assessments and partly from
preliminary results from modelling associated with the Environment
Agency’s ongoing Trent Fluvial Strategy. Redrow Homes (Midlands) and
the Council – who, between them, contributed much of the technical
information on flooding to the inquiry – agree that at the middle of the site
frontage the 1% fluvial flood level is 41.87m above sea level (i.e. flood
water would be as high as or higher than that once in 100 years; or that
the chance of that happening in any one year would be 1%). With flood
risk increasing over time with climate change, they also agree that a
corresponding “not unreasonable” level to allow for that effect would be
42.19m above sea level. In turn, the Council’s evidence shows that the
proportion of the site that lies below the 42m contour (between 41m and
42m, in fact) is slightly greater than the third or so that falls within the
Environment Agency’s indicative flood plain.
4.7.39 I appreciate that the Council gives some emphasis to the distinction in
assessing flood risk according to whether the effect of climate change is
included or excluded. PPG25 advises that, in relation to making land
allocations, “all risks relate to the time at which a … decision is made …”.
The Council refers to the Environment Agency’s interpretation of this, i.e.
that the possible future effects of climate change are only taken into
account as part of setting future development floor and external works
levels. I accept this interpretation, but notwithstanding that, there is no
escaping the 42.19m flood level referred to above in relation to the site
contours.
4.7.40 The Council claims that the northern boundary of the 1% floodplain lies at
the A5132 road and so does not extend into the development site. They
say that the road level is 42m. I saw that there are many points along the
A5132 road here where there is very little difference in level between the
road and the land to the south, and between the road and the land within
the development site to the north. Some of the development site is clearly
lower than the road. If the effect of climate change is excluded, the
relationship of the 1% flood level of 41.87m and the road level of 42m
indicates to my mind a very risky basis on which to be reasonably sure that
the area north of the road is acceptably free from flood risk. It is not clear
to me that the 42m road level is a surveyed level and, even if it is, a
difference of only 130 mm (about 5 inches) is insufficient to provide much
certainty when so much is unknown. It is also pertinent to bear in mind
the remarks in PPG 25 paragraph 24 that a 1% flood has a 26% probability
of being equalled or exceeded at least once in 30 years and a 49%
probability of being equalled or exceeded at least once in 70 years.
4.7.41 The Council stresses that only part of the 60ha area proposed to be
allocated for housing or employment here is required for development. The
60ha is the overall area of the combined allocation before the 4ha addition
133

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
that I refer to in paragraphs 66-67 below 2 . The Council’s comment is a fair
one in general terms, but assessment of the sizes of the areas required for
different purposes within the overall site leaves cause for concern. The
Council assesses the requirements as 27ha for housing, 5ha for
employment, 1ha for the local centre, and 14ha left as a constrained
pylon/rail zone in the northern part of the site. That leaves 13ha.
However, the Council’s own contour map shows as much as about 27 ha of
the combined housing-employment site at less than 42m above sea level.
That wipes out the design and layout flexibility that the wide drawing of the
allocation boundaries is intended to give. My assessment, therefore, is
that, in order to avoid the 1% flood plain, layout flexibility would be
severely compromised at best or, at worst, all the necessary elements of
the proposed development could not be provided within the allocation
boundaries. With the climate-change-included 1% flood level rather higher
than 42m, the position becomes even more serious. In the light of PPG25’s
advice about the effects of climate change and the need for a precautionary
approach, the fact that no fluvial flooding has affected the site in the past is
by no means a pointer to me that this will be true of the future.
4.7.42 I note the contents of an agreement of September 2003 (document
G306/Agreed matters/1) between the Council and one objector, George
Wimpey and Repton School jointly. That agreement is clearly significant. It
indicates that the area needed to be left undeveloped for floodwater
storage purposes amounts to only 0.85ha and that that requirement
depends on there being some hydraulic connectivity under the A5132 road
through a pipe that may exist there.
4.7.43 Nevertheless, for a number of reasons, I am drawn to a more cautious
approach. First, the earlier evidence on floodwater levels in relation to
contours was not withdrawn. Secondly, those floodwater levels are subject
to amendment as work on the Environment Agency’s Fluvial Strategy
proceeds, and it is not agreed exactly how much of the site may be liable to
flood until the modelled flood levels are confirmed. Although the Agency
thought it likely in September 2003 that the floodplain will be significantly
less than indicated on its indicative map, it expressly indicated that it was
not committed at that point to accepting any particular distance for setting
back the development from the A5132 road. Thirdly, much of the proposed
development site is flat, as is land to the south of it towards the Trent: that
means that any forecast of future flood levels that is only slightly lower
than reality is likely to result in a very significant underestimate of the area
that would be subject to flooding. Fourthly, a claim was submitted in
December 2003 (towards the end of the inquiry) by George Wimpey and
Repton School that much of the site is probably rendered undevelopable as
a result of the site’s connectivity with the River Trent via the underlying
River Terrace Deposits and associated with a very high winter water table.
Those points were not contested by the Council. Fifthly, and above all,
PPG25 advises that planning decisions should be taken on a precautionary
basis. Overall, there is too much doubt.
2 There is no suggestion that any of the 4ha addition would be built on, but the additional
areas are on the northern fringes of the site, so prima facie it seems unlikely that they
would be used for floodwater storage either. I therefore ignore the 4 ha addition in this
calculation.
134

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
4.7.44 The Council in effect takes the view, rightly, that building outside the 1%
floodplain would mean that the probability of that development having
adverse flooding consequences for other properties would be less than 1%.
But I have already indicated my concerns that building here could be within
the 1% floodplain. The Council’s argument about flood risk to properties
outside the development site falls on that basis. The position seems
analogous to me with the evidence put forward by local residents about the
off-site flood effect of the recent Riverside residential development south of
the A5132: the Council draws a contrast between the Riverside site being
within the 1% floodplain and the power station site being outside it, but my
remarks above indicate that that distinction is far from well made.
4.7.45 The Council draws my attention to the comment in PPG 25 paragraph 36
that nothing in PPG25 should be taken as departing from the advice in
PPG3 requiring priority to be given to re-using previously developed land
within urban areas. That does not mean, however, that consideration of
developing land that might be flooded escapes the precautionary principles
of PPG25. What it does mean is that PPG25 provides one aspect of the
more detailed, and in this case precautionary, advice for assessing the
potential and suitability of possible development sites against the wide
range of criteria indicated in PPG3 paragraph 31.
4.7.46 I conclude on this issue that, on the evidence before me, and accepting
that the level of knowledge about flood risk here may well have increased
since the inquiry was closed, the flood risk should be regarded as
unacceptable.
Issue f: acceptability of other physical and environmental constraints
4.7.47 Two matters fall to be considered here. The first is whether the allocation
is acceptable given what is known about ground contamination of the site.
The second is whether it is acceptable given the effect of the development
on the appearance and character of the area.
4.7.48 On contamination, the evidence indicates that in some locations within the
site there are elevated concentrations of a number of heavy metals and of
petroleum hydrocarbons associated with the ash and/or coal content of the
substantial areas of made ground within the site. In addition, there is
asbestos contamination, mainly 0.5-2.5m deep and covering an area of
about 2ha. The latter poses significant hazards, and I am told that the
practicable options appear to be the capping and fencing of the area in
question with indefinite monitoring to ensure the integrity of the fence and
capping (meaning that that particular part of the site could not be used for
housing) or (much more expensively) off-site disposal.
4.7.49 There is no evidence that a remediation strategy has been established. To
my mind, however, that does not mean that the allocation should not be
accepted, for a remediation strategy submitted with a planning application
would be quite acceptable.
4.7.50 I turn now to the effect of the proposal on the appearance and character of
the area. The former power station was a major development set in open
countryside near the village. The argument is put that, although the power
station was highly visible, it was generally an open and low density use,
whereas the proposed development would urbanise and entirely change the
visual and rural character of the area. However, the visibility of tall
structures is an important part of an area’s appearance. In addition, as the
135

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
Council points out, the site ceased itself to be countryside when the power
station was developed, and as well as the tall power station buildings, the
substantial coal stocking areas within the site would have been to a height
and volume comparable with the scale of built development. It is clear to
me that the proposed housing development would have less adverse visual
impact, from most viewpoints, than the power station. The argument is put
that there now exists a rare opportunity to enhance the landscape here by
not developing the site for housing. I do not dispute that, but it seems to
me that a decision on whether major housing development should proceed
here should depend more on the grounds that I explore above in relation to
other issues. I looked towards the site from some relatively distant
locations, but I saw nothing to suggest that a different assessment is
justified: for instance, housing development on the power station site
would probably be a little more noticeable from higher ground near Repton
than existing housing at Willington, because of differences in off-site tree
cover, but the distinction would be no more than that.
4.7.51 A number of local resident objectors clearly value what they regard as
Willington’s village character, and they see that being harmed. I
understand those concerns, and if the development were to proceed I have
no doubt that a doubling of the village population would result in changes
to that character. But it seems to me that the changes would not be
significantly greater than if a development of this size were to be proposed
near other developed areas, and I see no reason for Willington to enjoy
special protection in this respect. In response to objections, the Council
does not dispute that the village has a historic core, but I agree with them
that this core does not establish the overall character of the village.
Indeed, much of the village consists of housing of a suburban appearance
and of no particular distinction.
4.7.52 I do not believe that there are grounds for accepting some objectors’ fears
of the allocation leading to coalescence with other settlements, notably
Findern but also Derby in some objectors’ minds. There is a minimum
distance of about 0.8 km between the allocation site and Findern, and
Derby is further away. I see no reason why, notwithstanding the absence
of a statutory Green Belt in this part of the District, the countryside policies
of the development plan should not do much to maintain these gaps.
4.7.53 My consideration of this issue therefore does not provide any reason for the
allocation to be deleted.
Issue g: allocation for an alternative use
4.7.54 Many objectors make suggestions for alternative uses for the site, many of
them “green” uses. However, none of them are thought out in very much
detail, and I am unable to recommend in favour of any of them for that
reason. The important point is made in rebuttal of the “green” suggestions
that they would entail significant cost with little or no financial return, so
there would be no incentive for the landowner to proceed in this direction,
and that it would be unrealistic to expect others to do so either.
4.7.55 Notwithstanding the fact that I do not recommend an alternative use for
the site, it seems to me that the logical conclusion of accepting the rebuttal
argument would be that any previously developed land has to be developed
for profitable uses if eyesores are to be removed. Such a conclusion would
ignore the overall costs, not merely those accruing to the landowner or
136

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
developer, of redeveloping previously developed land in what may be
unsuitable locations.
Overall assessment on issues a to g
4.7.56 The overall question to be answered, as indicated in relation to issue a, is
whether this particular previously-developed site performs so poorly in
relation to the criteria in PPG3 paragraph 31 as to preclude its use for
housing before a greenfield site. On issue b, I conclude that there are
considerable limits to the appropriateness of the site’s location with regard
to its urbanness and its accessibility to jobs, shops and services. I take the
view here that that deficiency is so serious that unless the site scores
highly in relation to the other paragraph 31 criteria the allocation should be
rejected. My consideration of some of the other issues (c – existing
infrastructure; f – other physical and environmental constraints, g –
alternative uses) do not support an overall conclusion against the
allocation. But I have already indicated that my consideration of one issue
(d – building a community) adds somewhat to the concerns I express in
relation to issue b, while on the remaining issue (e – flood risk) I regard the
allocation as unacceptable. So the site does not score highly in relation to
the other paragraph 31 criteria. Overall, in my view, it performs so poorly
in relation to the paragraph 31 criteria as to preclude its use for housing
before a greenfield site. That forms the basis of my recommendation that
the allocation be deleted.
My approach to issues h to m
4.7.57 My considerations above do not cover all the objections made to Policy
H5. The other objections assume that the development will proceed. It is
for the Council to decide whether to accept my recommendation to delete
Policy H5, and it is entitled to have my views on the other issues – as are
the objectors themselves – should it decide that the development should
proceed. Because of my recommendation to delete Policy H5, I make no
recommendations arising from my consideration of issues h to m, but I do
indicate what my recommendations would have been if I were supporting
the principle of the development.
Issue h: deliverability
4.7.58 The site owners put forward an indicative implementation programme
dated May 2003 which indicates their view of the various stages by which
development will be progressed between 2004 and 2011 and showing 950
dwellings being completed by December 2011.
4.7.59 My assessment is that this is an over-optimistic programme, and I have a
number of reasons for saying that. The programme starts with this report
being delivered to the Council in January 2004, the submission of outline
and detailed planning applications in February 2004, approval of those
applications in July 2004, and the start of remediation works also in July
2004. That part of the programme clearly has not been met.
4.7.60 In addition, my impression is that there are other fundamental flaws in
the planning of these early stages. I am told that the site owners have a
development team in place to ensure that a planning application can be
submitted as soon as the Council receives this report. That presupposes
that the site owners and the development team are sufficiently confident
of a favourable recommendation on the allocation to justify the necessary
137

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
expenditure on preparing the applications and the very substantial
supporting documentation that would clearly be needed. That does not
strike me as a realistic assumption to make. Next, I am told that 2
planning applications would in fact be submitted: firstly, an outline
application and, secondly, a detailed application for the initial enabling
package of infrastructure works (document E21/PROOF/HRTS/2). Four
months are allowed for the Council’s consideration of those applications.
4.7.61 My experience suggests that this is likely to be an under-estimate of the
time required by the Council: a substantial bundle of documentation is
likely to be needed with the applications, relating not only to the
development of the site itself but also to a wide range of off-site matters
and including a section 106 undertaking or undertakings. These would be
necessary to put flesh on the bones of the preliminary indications put
forward at this inquiry. A pointer to how long consideration of a planning
application might take comes from the Council’s own indication that it is
its practice to involve local residents in identifying local needs as a
starting point for discussions with developers normally on receipt of a
planning application. Furthermore, if the detailed application that the site
owners refer to is indeed to relate to infrastructure works only, as
indicated in their own document, their programme, very surprisingly to
my mind, allows for no detailed planning application for the houses
themselves.
4.7.62 Finally on these initial stages, I note that although the site owners have
carried out housing development themselves, they believe it would be
appropriate to select a development partner in this case. They informed
the inquiry that a number of developers have expressed interest and that
a selection process to procure a development partner was to take place in
June-August 2003. Importantly, there is no evidence before me that that
selection process in fact took place or, if it did, what the results were.
Consequently, I am unaware that any housebuilder is in a position to be
involved in the remaining pre-development stages, including the planning
application stage, and that seems crucial to me if only for the
housebuilder to be satisfied about the financial viability of the
development of what is a far from easy site, a site with flood risks and
one close to substantial electrical apparatus that is to remain and could
well deter prospective housebuyers. Still less is it clear that there is a
housebuilder here in a position to build houses.
4.7.63 The site owners’ programme indicates that site works for the first phase –
of 50 dwellings – would start in March 2005, with the completion of the
first 50 dwellings coming in February 2006. But that, of course, depends
on progress in the preceding stages I mention above. My experience tells
me that it is both realistic and necessary to allow for 2 years’ delay to
overcome, in combination, the various problems and omissions that I
mention in paragraphs 59-61 above. That would mean that the first 50
dwellings would be completed in February 2008, not February 2006.
4.7.64 I accept that the sequence of completions after February 2008 would
match that given by the site owners for February 2006 onwards, i.e. the
2-year slippage would continue but would not be increased as the
development phases proceed. I do not believe there is any substantial
evidence on which to base a contrary view. This means that whereas the
site owners’ programme indicates 450 dwellings being completed by
138

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
March 2009, the 2-year slippage I believe must be allowed for means that
that number of dwellings would not be completed until March 2011. As
accepted by the Council, that, and not the site owners’ December 2011
target date, is the end of the Plan period.
4.7.65 Had I been recommending that the housing allocation here should be
accepted, I would therefore also have recommended that the contribution
of the site to meeting the District’s housing needs in the Plan period would
be 450 dwellings and not 950.
Issue i: possible changes to the boundary of the housing site shown on the
Proposals Map
4.7.66 I deal in my Employment Chapter with the merits of the change, between
the DDLP and RDDLP stages, in the balance of housing land and
employment land within the overall allocations for the power station site.
Here I deal with a smaller matter.
4.7.67 The site owners argue that 2 areas near Findern School, covering about 4
ha in all, should be added to the housing allocation. The Council accepts
this, with the proviso that there are some concerns regarding wildlife
interests here although they can be dealt with under the wording of Policy
H5(VI). The site owners agree with this, and their objection is
conditionally withdrawn.
4.7.68 Had I been recommending that the housing allocation here should be
accepted, I would therefore also have recommended that the Plan be
modified by the extension of the area allocated in line with document
E21/SDDC/Changes/1.
Issue j: distribution of the housing and employment elements of the overall
allocation
4.7.69 The site owners favour a less rigid split between the employment and
housing elements, pointing out that the Government endorses the concept
of mixed use development. However, whilst there may be some scope for
integrating land uses, I agree with the Council’s response that mixed-use
development is generally most appropriate in town centres. In addition,
Derbyshire County Council objects on the basis that the overall allocation
would be better split on a north-south (employment-housing) basis rather
than the Plan’s west-east (employment-housing) split. I accept the
Council’s view that it would be unnecessary to locate employment to the
north of the housing adjacent to the railway as the transfer of freight by
rail to and from this point would not be viable. But I have reservations
about their claim that employment uses being developed where shown on
the Plan would provide a visual buffer between the new housing and the
sub-station that is to remain in operation. I believe the relative locations
of the sub-station and the proposed housing would limit the claimed
benefit of the employment uses being located where shown on the Plan,
and there is a degree of landscape screening already in existence.
Moreover, the removal of employment uses from the western part of the
overall allocation would bring about a rather closer integration between
the new housing and the existing village (albeit insufficient to overcome
the reservations I state in relation to issues b and d above).
4.7.70 Had I been recommending in favour of the principle of redevelopment
here, I believe the proper response to these objections would have been
139

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
to recommend that the Plan should be amended so that the overall
redevelopment area be allocated for mixed housing-employment use.
That would facilitate a deeper consideration of these issues in the
preparation of a planning application and its consideration by the Council.
Issue k: the requirement for 300 affordable housing units
4.7.71 The objections here are mainly concerned with the viability of the
affordable housing requirement stated in the Plan. One of them, by the
site owners, is pursued in some detail.
4.7.72 The site owners argue that there is no justification for 300 affordable units
being required here. They say it is an arbitrary figure expressed in
absolute terms rather than more properly as a general target on which
negotiation would be possible. The site owners are content with the
change put forward in response by the Council in document
E21/SDDC/Changes/1. If adopted that change would have Policy H5(I)
saying that 20% (instead of 300) of the dwellings would be affordable
units, with additional explanatory text stating that the number of
affordable units would be determined at the planning application stage.
4.7.73 However, it is clear to me that substituting 20% for 300 would mean that
the Plan’s proposals for affordable housing here would not tally with the
Council’s general 20% starting point for affordable housing provision
stated in Policy H10. It therefore seems to me that a reference to up to
20% would be appropriate.
4.7.74 Other objections to the amount of affordable housing here are on social
grounds. I find those arguments unconvincing. Had I been
recommending that the housing allocation here should be accepted, I
would therefore also have recommended that the Plan be modified by the
amendment of Policy H5(I) and the associated explanatory text in line
with document E21/SDDC/Changes/1, subject to “300” in Policy H5(I)
being replaced by “up to 20%”.
Issue l: extension of the Willington settlement boundary
4.7.75 Derbyshire County Council suggests that Willington’s settlement boundary
should be redrawn to include the whole of this development site. The
District Council resists this on the basis that the substantial area to be left
undeveloped within the allocated area could then be harmfully developed
in accordance with Policy H1, and that extending the settlement boundary
should be deferred until the exact limits of the built-up development are
known and the planned development is completed.
4.7.76 In my experience, the usual practice is for settlement boundaries to
reflect the position at the end of the Plan period rather than when the Plan
is adopted. Nevertheless, adopting the objector’s approach would have
the practical difficulty noted by the District Council. Having regard to the
particular circumstances involved here, had I been recommending that the
housing allocation be accepted, I would therefore also have recommended
that no modification be made in response to this objection.
Issue m: other matters
4.7.77 Derby City Council believes that the provisions of Policy H5 could be
broadened to include the possibility of negotiating contributions to support
public transport services. However, I consider that Policy H5(II)’s
140

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
reference to the provision of public transport links could be reasonably
construed to include already what the objector seeks. I do not believe
that a recommendation for a modification would be called for had I been
supporting the principle of the development here.
4.7.78 Some objectors refer to conflicts between the development proposed for
the power station site and other policies in the Plan, including Policies
ENV7, ENV13, T1 and T5. These considerations do not add much to my
understanding of the issues involved. They do not lead to any change to
my recommendations, and they do not of themselves lead me to
recommend any modifications to the other policies referred to.
4.7.79 There are objections on the basis that the revision of the overall allocation
at the power station site in the RDDLP Proposals Map to provide for a
larger housing allocation under Policy H5 and a smaller employment
allocation under Policy EMP1 is not reflected in the area or the number of
dwellings referred to in Policy H5. I appreciate that the Council’s intention
in this revision is not to revise the size of the area actually to be
developed for housing or the number of dwellings to be built. It seems to
me that the matter might be expressed more clearly in the Plan but, had I
been recommending that the housing development here should be
accepted, the particular points made by these objectors would be
overtaken by my remarks at paragraphs 68-69 above on the need for a
mixed-use allocation (and the necessary consequential modifications).
4.7.80 Other objectors object to revision 45 insofar as it affects Willington.
Among other things revision 45 substitutes the term “Serviced Villages”
for “Sustainable Settlements” in the explanatory text accompanying Policy
H1. I do not see that very much hangs on this particular revision, and the
objectors give no cogent reason for not accepting the revised term. Had I
been recommending that the housing allocation here should be accepted,
these objections would not have led me to recommend any modification.
At the RDDLP stage, some objectors took the opportunity to largely repeat
their DDLP objections, this time for the enlarged area to be allocated for
housing. My views and recommendation are not affected by such
repetition.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Plan be modified by the deletion of Policy H5.
4.8 POLICY H6: SITE OF FORMER MOD DEPOT, HILTON
Objections
A1/6 Derbyshire County Council
B15/768 Hilton Parish Council
D7/1505 Government Office for the East Midlands
D8/1327 The Highways Agency
F7/877 Transport 2000
G21/998 David Wilson Homes (North Midlands)
G171/1105 J S Bloor (Measham) Ltd
G182/1339 Hallam Land Management
G243/1403 David Wilson Estates, Miller Homes (East Midlands) &
Taylor Woodrow
141

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
G258/1370 Miller Homes East Midlands
G306/1204 George Wimpey UK Ltd & Repton School
H12/1112 Don Amott Caravans Ltd
J622/172 Mr & Mrs Smillie
J842/576 Mrs B Harris
J881/627 Mrs D Lolley
K26/1115 Trustees of Melbourne Estate
LJ928/1451 Ms C Clarke
Issues
a. Whether Hilton is a sustainable location, or whether new development in the
Derby Sub-Area should be directed to the edge of Derby.
b. Whether the proposed density of development accords with Government
policy.
c. Whether the settlement confines should be extended to include the
allocation.
d. Whether land south of Hilton Garage should be allocated for housing or
employment use.
e. Whether the wooded areas adjacent to Egginton Road and near the car
depot should be safeguarded.
f. Whether the educational needs of the area will be met and whether a
sufficient range of community facilities will be provided.
g. Whether the policy should make provision for affordable housing.
h. Whether the site will deliver the required number of houses within the Plan
period.
i. Whether the policy should require a transport impact assessment in relation
to the A50 to be undertaken before major new development is permitted.
j. Whether improvements to bus services should secured as part of any further
development.
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.8.1 Most of the allocated housing land at Hilton has planning permission and the
substantial majority of the permitted dwellings have been built. The
remainder of the allocation is previously-developed land. There are no
comparable previously-developed sites on the edge of Derby. In the light of
Government advice that favours the use of previously-developed land before
greenfield sites and the extensive housing developments that have already
been undertaken at Hilton, I consider that building on the remaining
undeveloped land designated under Policy H6 represents an appropriate
pattern of development for the area.
4.8.2 The policy states that 46.78ha of land are allocated for a minimum of 855
dwellings. On its face this appears to suggest an overall housing density
significantly below the minimum density of 30 dwellings per ha
recommended in PPG3. I note that some of the housing on the allocated land
was permitted prior to the publication of PPG3 (March 2000) and therefore
may be at a density lower than 30 dwellings per ha. However, details
supplied by the Council demonstrate that approvals granted since March
2000 have achieved densities well above the Government’s suggested
142

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
minimum. As a result, it appears likely that the development of the allocated
land will, when completed, provide well in excess of 1,200 dwellings. The
Council has suggested new wording for the policy which more accurately
reflects the current position, plus amendments to the explanatory text
incorporating figures for 2003 rather than 2001. I support the gist of the
changes proposed by the Council. However, I have amended the wording to
include other references that I consider appropriate.
4.8.3 As well as the allocated housing, there is also substantial development
across most of the allocated employment land at Hilton. Notwithstanding the
extent of existing development, all of that land is shown on the Proposals
Map to be outside the boundary of Hilton. Land beyond settlement
boundaries is, by definition, countryside. To define such large housing and
employment areas as areas of countryside, effectively denies their true
character and their direct relationship to the adjoining village. Such a
definition could also lead to unnecessary conflict between various policies of
the Plan when determining planning applications. Even though the adopted
Local Plan shows major new allocations outside settlement boundaries, for
the reasons outlined above, I consider that such an approach should not be
repeated in the RDDLP.
4.8.4 The land that lies to the south of Hilton Garage is allocated for employment
purposes in the adopted Local Plan. In RDDLP it is allocated for housing. The
land has not been developed since it was vacated by the MoD and its
appearance has now reverted to that of open countryside. Nevertheless, I
have no reason to doubt that it is previously-developed land. Hallam Land
Management has expressed concern that this new housing allocation will
both erode the clear separation between housing on the west side and
employment uses on the east side of The Mease, and will downgrade the
prominence and attractiveness of the Hilton Business Park. However, I find
neither of these arguments persuasive.
4.8.5 As there is housing development on the west side of The Mease, then clearly
it would not harm the amenity of occupiers of those properties to have
housing, rather than employment uses, opposite them. With appropriate
landscaping it should be possible to provide buffers between the land in
question and the existing Business Park, sufficient to enable the reasonable
development of both areas to proceed. There are still large unoccupied and
undeveloped areas of the Business Park, and there is no substantial evidence
before me to demonstrate that the development for employment use of the
land south of Hilton Garage is likely during the Plan period. As such, even if
the housing allocation were to be deleted then there seems little likelihood of
the land being developed in a way that would enhance the prominence and
attractiveness of the employment uses in this area. In accordance with the
advice in paragraph 42 of PPG3, I consider it appropriate for the Council to
review this non-housing allocation and to consider whether the land might
be better used for housing. The fact that this is previously-developed land,
close to both major housing areas and existing shops and services in Hilton,
leads me to the view that the site is suitable for housing development.
4.8.6 Woodland that once existed on allocated land adjacent to Egginton Road
appears to have been cleared. As such, no further action can be taken on
that matter.
4.8.7 The Council has already entered into a legal agreement which will ensure
that, as new housing is built, developers contribute towards, amongst other
143

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
things, community, recreation and educational facilities. The education
authority has a statutory requirement to provide school places for children
living within its area. I note that the Council has negotiated both financial
contributions from developers towards the expansion of the local primary
school, plus the provision of additional playing fields attached to the school.
Contributions of land and finance have also been made by developers
towards the provision of community and recreation facilities. Policy H6
provides that a new legal agreement will be required in relation to the
additional housing allocation to cover the provision of open space,
recreational and educational facilities, and ‘the retention and management of
wildlife interests’.
4.8.8 One objector has requested that no further houses be built in the village for
at least a further 5 years, so as to allow sufficient time for a sense of
community to develop amongst existing residents. However, there is already
a valid planning permission for many of the remaining dwellings and it would
not be practical to attempt to delay their construction. Furthermore, in view
of the need to provide the required number of dwellings within the Plan
period, I do not regard such a temporary moratorium on new building as an
appropriate option. Having regard to each of the above factors, I consider
that reasonable steps are being taken to address the requirements of local
residents in respect of educational, community and recreational matters. I
therefore do not propose that there be any modification to the policy in
relation to these matters.
4.8.9 The policy makes no reference to the provision of affordable housing.
Notwithstanding the fact that this matter is dealt with in general terms in
Policy H10, I am mindful that Policies H3, H5 and H7 all incorporate an
indication as to the number of affordable housing units that each site is
expected to provide. I know of no reason why allocated land without
planning permission at Hilton should be treated any differently. I understand
that no residential permission has been granted for the land to the south of
Hilton Garage. The Council estimates that this land is capable of
accommodating about 150 dwellings. For the reasons set out in my findings
in respect of Policy H10, I consider that some affordable housing provision is
appropriate on larger sites in the District. I will therefore recommend that up
to 20% of the dwellings to be built on those parts of the H6 allocation, for
which planning permission has yet to be granted, should be affordable
housing units.
4.8.10 Within the H6 allocation, at March 2003, there were 620 dwellings with
planning permission but not yet commenced on the former MoD depot; a
further 47 dwellings to be built on the land to the west of Lucas Lane; plus
land without permission for about 150 dwellings south of Hilton Garage.
There does not appear to be any significant impediment to the
development of any of the areas of land in question. Furthermore, in the
light of past building rates at Hilton, I do not consider it unreasonable to
expect these 817 dwellings to be constructed within the remainder of the
Plan period.
4.8.11 I understand that a transport impact assessment was undertaken before
permission was granted for the redevelopment of the MOD site; and that
the results of that assessment influenced, amongst other things, the design
of the access to the A50. All of the allocated land at Hilton, except for the
land south of Hilton Garage (which is capable of accommodating about 150
144

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
dwellings) has planning permission. In considering any planning
application, for that remaining site, the implications for the highway
network of traffic likely to be generated by the development will be a
material consideration. But I do not consider the scale of that development
is likely to be sufficient to require a further full transport impact
assessment.
4.8.12 With regard to bus services, in the absence of detailed evidence as to the
levels of existing provision and usage, I am not able to recommend
whether or not developers should be required to contribute towards service
provision. Accordingly that must remain a matter for the Council’s
discretion in any negotiations relating to new housing development.
RECOMMENDATIONS
I recommend that the Plan be modified as follows:
A. That Policy H6 and the explanatory text be amended to read:
THE UNDEVELOPED PARTS OF THE LAND SHOWN ON THE
PROPOSALS MAP ARE ALLOCATED FOR HOUSING TO BE DEVELOPED
AT A MINIMUM DENSITY OF 30 DWELLINGS PER HECTARE NET. THE
MAJORITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT WILL TAKE PLACE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXISTING LEGAL AGREEMENT ASSOCIATED
WITH THE EXISTING OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION. IN
RELATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND SOUTH OF HILTON
GARAGE, A LEGAL AGREEMENT WILL BE REQUIRED TO COVER
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, OPEN SPACE AND RECREATIONAL
PROVISION, EDUCATIONAL PROVISION, AND THE RETENTION AND
MANAGEMENT OF WILDLIFE INTERESTS. WITHIN ANY NEW
PLANNING PERMISSION UP TO 20% OF THE DWELLINGS PROPOSED
WILL BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS.
The bulk of this site is carried forward from the previous local plan
which allocated the former MoD depot and land to the west of Lucas
Lane for housing. At 31 March 2003 a total of 323 dwellings had
been completed on the land to the west of Lucas Lane, but land for a
further 47 dwellings remained undeveloped. At the same date, 651
dwellings had been completed, 65 dwellings were under
construction, and planning permission had been granted for a
further 620 dwellings on the former MoD depot. The allocation is
carried forward for the permitted dwellings to be completed within
the plan period. In addition, part of the former MoD depot to the
south of Hilton Garage that was allocated for employment use in the
previous local plan is now allocated for housing. It is capable of
accommodating about 150 dwellings.
B. the settlement boundary for Hilton be extended to include the allocated land.
4.9 POLICY H7: BOULTON MOOR
Objections
The list of objectors to this policy is set out at Annex B.
Issues
145

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
a. Whether land in north east Derby should be developed in preference to this
site.
b. Whether building on a green field site is acceptable when brown field land
remains undeveloped.
c. Whether any further development at Boulton Moor would materially harm
the adjoining Green Belt and the setting of Elvaston, Thulston or Aston.
d. Whether the allocation should be restricted to the west of Snelsmoor Lane.
e. Whether the development would materially harm the adjoining Derby City
‘green wedge’ and whether the housing allocation should be dependent upon
a comprehensive study including that adjacent land.
f. Whether trunk roads in the area can accommodate traffic likely to be
generated by development on the allocated site.
g. Whether Snelsmoor Lane can accommodate traffic likely to be generated by
the development.
h. Whether the development would be likely to lead to unacceptable levels of
air pollution, noise, material harm to local wildlife or an increased risk of
flooding.
i. Whether existing schools, health and community facilities in the area could
adequately accommodate the likely increase in demand? Whether new
schools are required.
j. Whether the policy should require contributions to support public transport
services in the area.
k. Whether the number of dwellings proposed will be delivered within the plan
period.
l. Whether the development should include affordable housing and whether the
scale of the affordable housing requirement is appropriate.
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.9.1 Housing Policy 17 of the Derby & Derbyshire Joint Structure Plan sets out the
housing provision to be made within both the Derby and the Swadlincote
Sub-Areas of the District during the period 1991-2011. The Local Plan is
required to be in conformity with the Structure Plan and for this to be
achieved, the housing requirement for South Derbyshire needs to be met
within the confines of the District. On this basis, land in north east Derby
cannot be used to achieve the level of housing provision required on the
south side of the city.
4.9.2 Structure Plan Housing Policy 17 requires some of the housing provision
within the Derby Sub-Area to be made on the periphery of Derby. The
Council has not been able to identify other currently available brownfield
sites on the periphery of the city sufficient to meet the housing requirement
for the Plan period. In such circumstances, I consider it appropriate to have
regard to the development of greenfield land. Criteria (I) of the policy aims
to delay commencement of the development at Boulton Moor so as to favour
building on allocated brownfield sites at Willington and Hilton. However, if
the requisite number of dwellings are to be provided by 2011 (the end of the
Plan period), then this criterion may need to be re-assessed. I consider this
matter further in paragraph 4.9.13 below.
146

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
4.9.3 The site allocated on the DDLP Proposals Map is a self-contained area with
clearly defined boundaries. To the north the site is defined by existing
housing, to the east by Snelsmoor Lane, and to the south and west by
established tree belts. The land immediately to the south of the allocated
site, on the opposite side of Snelsmoor Lane, is in the Green Belt. However,
the substantial screening that exists along the southern boundary of the site
is, in my view, sufficiently robust to prevent development there causing
material harm to the openness of the adjoining Green Belt. I consider that
the Green Belt land to the east of the allocated site is far enough away, so
that its openness would not be materially harmed by the proposed housing
development. For the same reason, and notwithstanding the concerns of the
local Parish Councils, I consider that the rural settings of Elvaston, Thulston
and Aston would not be adversely affected by the development of the site
allocated on the DDLP Proposals Map.
4.9.4 On the Proposals Map in the RDDLP the southern portion of the original H7
allocation is transferred to land on the opposite, eastern side of Snelsmoor
Lane. This revision is supported by the landowner on the bases that it would
allow for the allocated land to be more readily divided between
housebuilders, thereby speeding-up the rate of development; it would
reduce certain initial infrastructure costs; and it would enable the early
provision of a local shopping centre close to the A6. I will consider each of
these factors in turn.
4.9.5 If the sub-division of the allocated land into discrete parcels for development
by separate housebuilders was found to be the most appropriate method of
developing the site, then I am not persuaded that this would be significantly
more problematic if all the land were to be on one side of Snelsmoor Lane.
The original allocation is a regular shaped parcel of land with a long eastern
boundary to that Lane, and there is a variety of ways in which that land
could be sub-divided if necessary. Reducing initial infrastructure costs can
benefit the development process, but I do not consider the savings likely to
be achieved in relation to the disposal of surface water or the formation of a
landscaped bund adjacent to the A6 are sufficient in themselves to justify
revising the allocation. As for the claimed benefit of being able to construct
the local shopping centre close to the A6, I consider that, until such time as
a brief or master plan for the future development of Boulton Moor has been
prepared and agreed upon, it would be unwise to pre-judge the most
appropriate location for such a centre. Accordingly, I do not find each of the
above factors as good reasons for accepting the revised allocation.
Furthermore, I consider that the revised allocation does have clear
disadvantages.
4.9.6 The proposed housing site on the east side of the re-aligned Snelsmoor Lane
would have no clearly defined northern or southern boundaries, and housing
on the land would be extremely prominent from both the adjacent A6 dualcarriageway
and from Green Belt land to the east. Without structural
landscaping and tree planting in place, I consider that major housing
development on that land would be materially harmful to the local landscape
and the openness of the Green Belt. For these reasons I regard the H7
allocation as shown on the DDLP Proposals Map to be the preferred option.
4.9.7 Land to the west of the allocated site in the DDLP forms part of a designated
‘green wedge’ that Derby City Council is seeking to safeguard from
development that would harm its openness. It is desirable that development
147

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
on the allocated site should not undermine that objective. As a result of tree
planting undertaken in the past, the western boundary of the site is welldefined
and partially screened from land within the green wedge. However,
land within the green wedge rises to the west of the allocated site, enabling
views across that site to be obtained from certain points around Chellaston.
Some impact upon the green wedge from development on the allocated site
is therefore inevitable. Nevertheless, if improvements to the existing
screening along the western boundary of the site can be secured as part of
the development of that land then, in a fairly short period of time, it should
be possible to provide a reasonably effective degree of separation between
the two areas. In such circumstances I consider that the allocated site
should be capable of being developed without substantial harm being caused
to the openness of that green wedge. For the same reasons I am not
persuaded either that there is a need for a comprehensive study of the wider
Boulton Moor Area, or that the allocation of site H7 for housing should be
delayed until such a study has been undertaken.
4.9.8 The Council has stated that the development potential of the land at Boulton
Moor was taken into account in the strategic traffic modelling for the A50,
Derby Southern Bypass and the A6, Derby Spur/Alvaston Bypass. If that is
so, then the trunk road network should be capable of accommodating traffic
likely to be generated by the proposed development.
4.9.9 Snelsmoor Lane to the south and west of the site is narrow and winding, and
generally unsuitable for carrying large volumes of traffic. However, I would
not expect it to be necessary for any development on the allocated land to
have direct access onto that section of the Lane. Rather I would expect all
traffic to have access only onto the section of the Lane between the A6 and
Theulston Fields Farm. That part of the Lane runs on a broadly north-south
alignment, is of fairly recent construction, and provides a direct link with the
nearby strategic road network. I understand that it was constructed to a
specification that took into account the likelihood of further housing
development at Boulton Moor. Neither the Highways Agency nor the local
highway authority have objected to the principle of housing development on
the allocated site. I would expect most of the traffic generated by the
development to use only the re-aligned section of Snelsmoor Lane and there
is no substantial evidence to suggest that this section could not adequately
accommodate traffic likely to arise from the scheme.
4.9.10I do not consider that the development of the allocated site for housing and
associated development would be likely to harm materially air quality in the
area or lead to an unacceptable increase in noise. There is no substantial
evidence to show that the land has any particular importance for nature
conservation. Nor is there any substantial evidence to show that the land is
at risk from flooding. However, if any of these matters were found to be a
cause for concern then I consider they can be adequately addressed having
regard to the relevant environment policies in the Plan.
4.9.11 The Council has stated that housing of the scale proposed at Boulton Moor
is likely to require the provision of a new primary school. The most suitable
location for such a facility is a matter for detailed assessment when the
overall layout of the site is being determined. I do not consider it
necessary to allocate a specific parcel of land for such a school. In view of
the proximity of the site to Derby, it is reasonable that secondary school
provision should be assessed in relation to the demand for and supply of
148

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
such facilities in the city. Having regard to this factor, and my findings in
paragraph 7.6.3 of this report, I do not consider it necessary to allocate
land for the provision of a new secondary school at Boulton Moor. Criterion
(IV) of the policy sets out the Council’s intention to seek to secure either
the provision of, or contributions towards, facilities to meet community,
health and educational needs arising from the development of the site.
This intention is reinforced by community policies C2, C3 and C5. Precisely
what community and health facilities will be needed to serve future
residents of Boulton Moor is a matter more appropriate for inclusion in a
development brief than this policy and, in this context, I do not consider
that the policy requires modification.
4.9.12 Criterion (V) of the RDDLP refers to contributions towards transportation
measures rather than highway works. I consider that this revised wording
satisfactorily meets the objections in this context.
4.9.13 It is intended that the allocated site should provide a minimum of 1058
dwellings by April 2011. In seeking to ensure that this land is not
developed before brownfield sites in the Derby Sub-Area, criterion (I) of the
policy requires that housebuilding should not commence before 1 April
2006. However, due to the passage of time, this date has little relevance.
Furthermore, notwithstanding the change agreed at the inquiry regarding
the occupation of the properties, it is is now so close to 1 April 2006 that it
is difficult to envisage any developer being in a position to be able to start
building on the site before that date. I have considered whether it would be
appropriate to impose a later date so that priority can continue to be given
to building on brownfield sites. But that option has severe drawbacks. The
Council has to meet Structure Plan dwelling requirements within the Plan
period. In view of my recommendations in respect of housing development
at Willington power station and in the absence of alternative brownfield
sites within the Sub-Area, it would be inappropriate to impose a time
restriction upon the commencement of development at Boulton Moor.
Rather, I consider that encouragement should be given to the early
commencement of development at this site so that its contribution towards
the Sub-Area housing requirement within the Plan period can be optimised.
4.9.14 Even without any restriction on commencement, some objectors have
questioned whether there is sufficient time for 1058 dwellings or more to
be built by 2011. If development were to start in 2006, then over 200
dwellings would need to be built every year in order to achieve this total. At
the Housing Round Table Session there was no dispute between the Council
and the owner of the allocated land at Boulton Moor that, assuming
construction commences in 2006, the required building rate of 212
dwellings per annum could not only be achieved but probably exceeded by
some margin. I am mindful that this building rate was disputed by
objectors who considered 100 dwellings or thereabouts per annum to be a
more likely completion rate. But, having regard to the generally
unconstrained nature of the land, I consider that it should be possible to
achieve the rate necessary for this site to be developed within the Plan
period.
4.9.15 The Council has a responsibility to allocate in the Plan sufficient land for
housing. It also has a responsibility to ensure that there is a mix of dwelling
types and sizes to cater for a range of housing needs, so as to help create
balanced communities and to avoid areas of social exclusion. The Council
149

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
has identified a need for affordable housing in the District and, as such, it is
reasonable that future development at Boulton Moor should incorporate an
appropriate percentage of such accommodation. Some residents in the area
fear that providing such accommodation will both increase the risk of crime
and lower property values; and I have considered both of those matters.
4.9.16 With regard to fear of crime, well-designed developments where people feel
safe and secure can help to reduce crime and disorder, and such concerns
are not in themselves a good reason for excluding the less well-off from
new housing. As for concerns over property values, the planning system
does not exist to protect the interests of one person against those of
another. Accordingly, I do not consider such concerns to be a material
planning consideration.
4.9.17 Turning to the amount of affordable housing to be provided within the
scheme, in response to objections from E A Chamberlain & Central Land
Holdings, the Council has requested that criterion (I) be amended to state
that the equivalent of 25% of the new dwellings will be affordable housing
units. But, for the reasons set out in my consideration of Policy H10, I
cannot support the inclusion of that percentage in the policy. From the
evidence before me, I consider that the policy should do no more than
require that up to 20% of the new dwellings on the land at Boulton Moor
will be affordable housing. I will therefore recommend that criterion (I) be
amended accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Plan be modified by:
A. The deletion of criterion (I) of Policy H7 and its replacement with the following:
(I) CONSTRUCTION OF A MINIMUM OF 1058 DWELLINGS OF WHICH UP
TO 20% WILL BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS.
B. The H7 allocation being shown on the Proposals Map as it was in the DDLP.
4.10 POLICY H8: STENSON FIELDS
Objections
F84/1378 Friends of the Earth
G171/1107 J S Bloor (Measham) Ltd
G243/1405 David Wilson Estates, Miller Homes (East Midlands) &
Taylor Woodrow
G306/1206 George Wimpey (UK) Ltd & the Governors of Repton
School
Issues
a. Whether building on a green field site is acceptable when brown field land
remains undeveloped.
b. Whether the proximity of the site to the Burton-on-Trent to Derby railway
line would result in high levels of noise intrusion and vibration.
c. Whether a satisfactory access to the site can be formed.
150

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
d. Whether the site will deliver the proposed number of dwellings within the
Plan period.
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.10.1 Structure Plan Housing Policy 17 requires some of the housing provision
within the Derby Sub-Area to be made on the periphery of Derby. The
Council has not been able to identify currently available brownfield sites on
the periphery of the city sufficient to meet the housing requirement for the
Plan period. In such circumstances I consider it appropriate to have regard
to the development of greenfield land. The allocated site is a wellcontained
parcel of land, being adjoined by existing housing to both the
south and the east; a railway line to the north and Stenson Road to the
west. It is the remnant of a larger housing allocation within the adopted
Local Plan. In the light of each of these factors, I find the development of
this greenfield land acceptable.
4.10.2Notwithstanding the proximity of the site to the Burton-on-Trent to Derby
railway line, I consider that any likely material harm from passing trains by
way of noise intrusion or vibration could be adequately addressed as part of
the detailed design of any residential scheme for this land.
4.10.3 There is no evidence to suggest that a safe access to the land could not be
provided from Swallowdale Road. As such there would be no need to
overcome the hazards that might be expected from a direct access to
Stenson Road.
4.10.4 The site is owned by Derby City Council. I understand it to be that Council’s
intention to bring the site forward for development to provide a mixed
tenure scheme and I know of no good reason why that development should
not be undertaken within the Plan period.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that no modification be made to the Plan.
4.11 HOUSING: OMISSION SITES
Additional and Replacement Housing Allocations
4.11.1As described in section 4.1, the RDDLP allocates enough housing land to
meet the Structure Plan’s requirements. However, if SDDC accepts my
recommendations to delete certain allocations, alternative areas of land will
be required to make up the resulting shortfall. As far as the Swadlincote
sub-area is concerned, the deletion of sites H2C and H2D would not have
any material effect on the land supply position, and I do not consider that
any replacement allocations are needed in this sub-area. Within it there is
sufficient land available on which to meet the strategic housing requirement
without the need to allocate greenfield urban extensions.
4.11.2 Following my conclusions above regarding the over-allocation of housing
land in the Plan, if my recommendations concerning Policies H2 and H5 are
accepted, it would be necessary to find sufficient housing land to
accommodate 607 dwellings in the Derby sub-area. This is made up of 950
dwellings (from the deletion of the Willington allocation) – 343 dwellings
(removing the over-allocation figure) => 607.
151

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
4.11.3In practice this means that consideration should be given to the allocation of
one or more of the housing omission sites proposed by the objectors in
order to help make up the deficit. The quality and extent of research
undertaken on each of these sites and the strength of the evidence varies
greatly. It is not possible therefore for me to come to a judgement as to
which locations are the most appropriate to make up the shortfall. In such
circumstances I have no alternative other than to recommend that SDDC
revisit a number of the housing omission sites and decide which are the
most suitable to be allocated in the Plan.
4.11.4In order to assist in this process I have considered the merits of each of the
omission sites insofar as this is possible on the evidence before me. For
each of them I conclude whether the site should either be rejected outright
or be included in a ‘pot’ of potential allocations which SDDC should
revaluate with a view to determining which of the potential allocations
should be selected from this ‘pot’.
4.11.5I have found the Plan’s search sequence to accord with the approach of
PPG3. In line with it, I recommend that consideration should first be given
to brownfield sites in or immediately next to the built-up areas of
Melbourne or the “Serviced Villages”. However, no party has advanced the
view that there are any brownfield sites on the edge of Derby’s built-up
area; and I do not know of any such sites. Consequently, some greenfield
land will still be needed to make up the shortfall in the Derby sub-area.
This should first of all be sought as urban extensions in sustainable
locations.
4.11.6I do not interpret the Structure Plan’s guidance that development should be
directed to the periphery of Derby as meaning that all or, indeed any, of it
must necessarily by located on the edge of the existing built-up area of the
city. And, I consider that the term “periphery” extends to Melbourne and
the larger villages a similar distance from the built-up area. That said, while
areas adjacent to “Serviced Villages” should not be ruled out of the
equation, I do not share the same degree of zeal for such locations as some
of the objectors clearly do. Indeed, it seems to me that there are sound
reasons why a degree of caution should be exercised in this respect.
4.11.7Annex 7 of the Housing Topic Paper (CD27) uses the phrase “sustainable
settlement hierarchy” and some objectors appear to have equated the
scores derived from the Council’s appraisal as a form of league table in
which Etwall, which is accorded the highest score, is regarded as the most
sustainable of the settlements studied. The scores in the ‘sustainability’
assessment give an indication of the relative level of provision in individual
settlements, but I am reluctant to place great weight on this exercise as a
clear indicator that a particular settlement is especially suited to
accommodate additional housing in the form of express allocations. Rather,
as the categories of settlements identified in Policy H1A indicate, the scores
tend to inform what level of brownfield development is deemed
appropriate. And insofar as greenfield land is concerned, I have already
recommended the deletion of part B of the policy.
4.11.8Policy 1 of RPG8 sets out the locational priorities for development. Its first
priority is to direct development to locations within urban areas. It then
152

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
recommends suitable sites in locations adjoining urban areas, which are or
will be well served by public transport. Policy 2 of RPG8 sets out
sustainability criteria for development. These criteria include ‘the
accessibility of development sites by non-car modes and the potential to
improve such accessibility to town centres, employment, shops and
services’. Both of these policies reflect Government policy which aims to
reduce the need to travel. If the approach advocated in these policies is
applied to the Derby Sub-Area, it appears to suggest that preference
should be given to the release of greenfield land adjacent to the Derby
urban area. Such land is closer to a range of employment, shopping, and
service facilities than land adjoining the other settlements in the area. The
urban area of Derby is generally capable of being better served by public
transport than the other settlements; and there is likely to be greater scope
for residents to be able to make regular trips either on foot or cycle.
4.11.9In my consideration of the housing proposal at Willington Power Station I
have already remarked about the guidance in paragraph 69 of PPG3 which
advises that only a limited amount of housing can be expected to be
accommodated in expanded villages. I also refer to paragraph 13 of PPG13
which indicates that the focus for additional housing should be existing
towns and cities. I acknowledge that the level of public transport in various
of the ‘Serviced Villages’, including Etwall, falls within the Council’s
definition of ‘good’ 3 . But, as I have already noted, Willington Parish
Council’s survey indicates that 90% of that village’s workers are employed
outside Willington. A similar pattern is evident in Etwall where I am told
that the 1991 census figures indicated that only 18% of the economically
active residents of the village Etwall work there 4 . It seems to me that there
is good reason to suppose that both the settlements referred to are
essentially commuter villages, a pattern that is likely to prevail in most of
the ‘Serviced Villages’. In all probability therefore, any sizeable housing
development on their periphery would tend to perpetuate and reinforce
their role as dormitory villages, in which case locating additional housing
development here is likely to increase the overall need to travel.
4.11.10 I am also concerned that directing large areas of housing development to
greenfield sites adjacent to Serviced Villages, rather than the urban edge
of Derby, may not only increase the overall need to travel, but may
substantially erode the village character that some of these settlements
still possess. In the light of this, I regard the provisions of Structure Plan
Housing Policy H5 regarding the physical relationship of new housing
development to villages as another weighty consideration. That policy
indicates that new housing development in villages will be restricted
within the built framework or wider physical confines of the village.
Accordingly, therefore, I have also had regard to the landscape setting of
settlements, and the need to protect both environmentally sensitive areas
and the countryside in general. Each of these factors have been important
in my decision as to which sites should be recommended for inclusion in
to the Council’s “pot” for more detailed assessment.
4.11.11 A significant number of objectors promote the allocation of specific sites
3 CDA27 – Annex 7
4 G306//Proof/7 Table 5.11
153

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
for housing, or the extension of development boundaries to include
particular areas of land. For purposes of clarity, I address these
objections by settlement, in alphabetical order, first of all in the Derby
sub-area. Objections which promote the creation of development
boundaries around particular settlements are addressed in section 4.3.
Points of general principle raised in objections relating to omission sites
are also dealt with in section 4.1.
Derby Sub-Area
Aston-on-Trent
Objection
J462/1173 Mr J Salsbury
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.12 Aston-on-Trent is defined as a “serviced settlement”, and the objector
seeks to extend the village development boundary to include some 8.3ha
of agricultural land at the Paddocks, to the south-east of the village. He
proposes an allocation as a “mixed residential development”, to include
some local needs housing. He says that the site is well-related to the
village and, if appropriately landscaped, could be developed without
causing environmental damage.
4.11.13 The site is on the northern and north-eastern side of Shardlow Road. On
the road frontage it is separated from the built-up area of the village by
playing fields and the objector’s dwelling, but a small length of the site’s
western boundary adjoins rear gardens of properties on an estate at
Manor Farm Road. I consider that this separation, combined with its
sheer size and its extension into the open countryside by some 400m
beyond the existing built-up area prevents the site from being wellrelated
to the village. Such extensive development would be readily
visible from the road and various public footpaths and in my opinion
there would be a significant and harmful intrusion into the countryside.
This could not in my view be adequately mitigated by “appropriate
landscaping”.
4.11.14 Even though there is a need to meet the shortfall of housing land in the
Derby sub-area by releasing some greenfield land, I consider that this
site would be inappropriate for the above reasons.
4.11.15 SDDC refers to the proximity of a scheduled Ancient Monument. This is
on the opposite side of Shardlow Road, to the south-east of the site. I
do not consider that the existence of the monument would necessarily
preclude housing on the objection site, but it could constrain the extent
of development on at least the nearer parts of the land, depending on
the results of an archaeological investigation, which would be necessary.
It is not an overriding objection to any allocation.
4.11.16 In section 4.2 I address objections seeking to amend Policy H1 to permit
new housing which is well-related to existing settlements. The objector
also argues that the Policy should refer to the importance of providing
affordable “exception housing” as he believes that Policy H10B will not
154

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
meet the needs of villages in the District. However, he provided no
evidence that Policy H10 will not provide for the level of affordable
housing required to meet any local needs, nor has he quantified any
such needs. Even if there were requirements in the general area, I do
not consider that they would be such as to justify such an extensive and
visually harmful development.
4.11.17 My conclusions on objection J462/1171, promoting a mixed development
on the site, including uses in Classes B1, C2 and C3, are also of
relevance to the current objection.
Boulton Moor
Objection
J962/175R
Mr K L Dewis
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.18 This objection concerns a parcel of land located between Shardlow
Road and the Alvaston Bypass. The site is mostly open farmland, with
part of the western side being used as allotments. Since the
construction of the Alvaston bypass, the land has become physically
separated from the open countryside to the east; and in Chapter 2 of the
report I recommend that it be deleted from the Green Belt (Policy ENV6).
However, whilst landscaping and new tree planting have taken place
adjacent to the new road, it will be several years before those trees are
able to provide any effective screening. In the interim, any housing
development on this site would be most intrusive when viewed from both
the Bypass and from land to the east within the Green Belt. That visual
harm would be contrary to the provisions of Policy ENV21(E). I regard
this as a clear-cut reason for not recommending this site for housing
development.
Chelaston
Objections
G21/1000 David Wilson Homes (North Midlands)
J556/219 Mr J E Hicklin
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.19 Objectors seek the allocation of some 44ha at Lowes Farm, Chelaston,
adjacent to the southern fringe of Derby, as a housing site. It is roughly
triangular in shape and is bounded by an embankment to the A50 to the
south, a new road at Holmleigh Way just inside the city boundary to the
north-east, and by Lowes Lane on the west. Recent development within
Derby has extended south to Holmleigh Way. The route of the former
Derby-Sandiacre canal crosses the site; apart from the trees along it, the
land is largely open with low hedges. It is generally flat, with a slight
slope up to the A50.
4.11.20 The objectors say that the site offers the opportunity of creating a
planned urban extension with a range of employment, community,
leisure, retail and transport facilities. They also point out that the site
could benefit from such facilities which are proposed on the edge of the
city, some of which are being provided following allocations and planning
permissions in Derby. They argue that development on the site would
155

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
accord with PPG3, RPG8 and the Structure Plan.
4.11.21 At present the A50 passes through largely open countryside, with open
land forming a buffer to the built-up area of Derby. At this point
Holmleigh Way to my mind forms a firm and logical boundary to the
urban area. However, any development on the objection site would
intrude into the currently open area, and be particularly obvious from
Holmleigh Way, the elevated length of the A50, and from the bridge over
it at Lowes Lane. From all these viewpoints, development on the site
would be clearly seen and would harmfully erode the character of the
open corridor along the A50.
4.11.22 It appears to me that access would be available from Holmleigh Way
without any need to affect the canal and I do not agree with SDDC on
this point. However, most of the site is within the Regionally Important
Geological Site at Sinfin Moor, and so subject to Policy ENV1. There
appears to be no case for development which would override this
designation.
4.11.23 I am not persuaded that there is any need for additional employment
land to be allocated in the Derby sub-area. Neither this aspect of the
proposal, nor the indication that new community facilities could be
provided, or existing ones used, in my opinion justifies allocating this
land.
4.11.24 Even though there is a need to meet the shortfall of housing land in the
Derby sub-area by releasing some greenfield land, I consider that this
site would be inappropriate for the above reasons.
4.11.25 Snelsmoor Lane has recently been realigned in connection with major
housing development within Derby city, and this has left a triangular
area of land between the old and new routes, immediately next to the
Derby boundary. It extends to 0.18ha, and not the 1.8ha described in
SDDC‘s rebuttal. This small area is surrounded by roads and isolated
from the objector’s farm. He says that its size, shape and ease of public
access makes it unsuitable for either livestock or arable farming, and he
believes that it is suitable as a housing site for a single dwelling. He
says that access is good and that a dwelling would be seen in close
relationship with nearby new housing.
4.11.26 Even if more than one dwelling were to be accommodated, the site is too
small to have a specific allocation for housing. However, the corollary of
the objection would be to remove the site from the Green Belt.
Currently the Green Belt extends up to the line of the old lane, on the
City boundary; in my opinion this marks a firm boundary of the open
countryside. While the new route of the lane would be an equally logical
limit to the Green Belt, PPG2 advises that Green Belt boundaries should
have a degree of permanence. I do not therefore believe that moving
the line would be justified.
4.11.27 Any housing on the land would not appear to fall within any of PPG2’s
categories of appropriate development. Moreover it would reduce the
openness of the Green Belt and I do not consider that this effect would
be justified by the difficulties in farming the land which the objector
cites.
4.11.28 The site is within a sub-area where some greenfield development on the
156

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
periphery of Derby could be supported. Housing to the north and west is
sporadic, and I do not agree that one dwelling, or a small number, would
be poorly-related to the existing development. However, I consider that
the site’s Green Belt status, combined with the current logical boundary,
militates against any development upon it.
Church Broughton
Objections
J919/1151 Mr & Mrs J F and E A Atkinson
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.29 The objectors seek the delineation of a development boundary around
the village, to include the allocation of about 1.5ha on the eastern side of
Boggy Lane, south of existing development on Old Hall Lane, for 10
market and 10 affordable dwellings. They say that the site is wellrelated
to the village and so complies with Structure Plan Policy GDSP3.
They believe that a shop and village hall could be provided on the site,
and that these would reduce travel patterns.
4.11.30 The provision of new community facilities would be welcomed. However,
if this argument were to be used to justify housing development so far
from other facilities, it would be necessary to show that, for example, a
shop would be, and continue to be, viable in a village of this size. This
has nor been demonstrated. I agree with SDDC that, even if a shop and
village hall were to be provided on the site, locating 20 new houses there
would be likely to increase the number of journeys by private car. I also
consider that this would be the case even if the number of dwellings
were to increase to accord with PPG3’s guidance on density.
4.11.31 In any event, the objection site would extend well beyond the existing
built-up area and would harmfully intrude into the open countryside. I
note that the Inspector who in 1990 dismissed an appeal relating to 2
dwellings on the site’s Boggy Lane frontage made the same findings.
4.11.32 As an alternative, the objectors say that land between Boggy Lane and
Bent Lane could be developed. No specific details of the land involved
were supplied, but it seems to me that housing in this general area
would be even less well-related to the village’s framework and more
intrusive than would development on the objection site.
Egginton
Objections
J454/1236 Mr G J Perry
J497/120R Trustees of J M and E L Harrison
J918/1129 Kevin F Ellis
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.33 The first two objections relate to the same land and I shall take them
together. Later representations from the third objector also referred to
this land, but this was not a duly made objection. The objectors
157

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
promote the allocation of an area of grassland on the eastern side of
Duck Street, south of number 104, for housing. No plan of the exact
boundaries was provided but the site extends to some 0.25ha. One
objector gives a figure of 6 units and the other proposes up to 4. It is
said that the site is redundant for agriculture and is constrained by its
position between a flood bank and the village. Housing was supported in
a recent village survey and it is claimed that development would help
maintain the village’s viability and services, including the school.
4.11.34 The site is clearly greenfield land outside the village’s framework and,
even if Egginton were reclassified as a “Serviced Village”, development
here would breach Policy H1.A(II). Moreover the suggested modification
to permit up to 4 dwellings on brownfield infill sites would not provide for
development on this site. In any event, Inspectors who dismissed
appeals in 1990 and 2001, relating to 2 and 20 dwellings respectively on
what SDDC says was this site, found that housing here would be a
harmful and prominent intrusion into the open countryside. In my
opinion, and notwithstanding the survey quoted, I consider that the site
is an important part of the village’s rural setting and that this would be
significantly harmed by the extension of existing ribbon development
inherent in the objections.
4.11.35 I appreciate that, especially if treated in isolation, the site’s agricultural
use may be constrained, but there was no evidence that no alternative
use is possible. Nor was there evidence either that local services are
already unviable or that their viability would be secured by development
of the site. I see no reason to modify the plan to provide for a visually
harmful development, even if Egginton’s status in Policy H1 is
reassessed.
4.11.36 The other objection seeks the inclusion of a strip of land, about 150m
long, on the frontage of the southern side of Fishpond Lane within a
development boundary. It is argued that this is within the village’s flood
bund, which should be the natural boundary, and that the inclusion of an
area within an adjacent garden shows that the site is accepted as
“rounding off”. However, the objection site is greenfield land, and so
development on it would not comply with Policy H1.A(II) even if Egginton
were to become subject to that Policy and if a development boundary
were to be delineated.
4.11.37 I agree with SDDC that a particular feature of the village is the presence
of open land on frontages. I consider that the open nature of this site,
together with the presence of protected trees, is important to the
character of Egginton. Such a long ribbon of housing, as envisaged in
the objection, would erode the rural surroundings and significantly harm
the character of this part of the village. I do not believe that the small
extension of an adjacent garden has set a precedent for new housing.
4.11.38 Although the objector believes that not all development must be on
previously developed land in such settlements, I consider that in general
terms Policy H1 balances the national and local emphasis on the use of
brownfield land with the maintenance of local facilities. In my opinion,
the level of greenfield development now proposed would encourage car
journeys, in view of the limited facilities in the village.
158

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
Etwall
Objections
G163/1017, 159R Charterhouse Land Ltd
G226/1167 Gainsborough Property
G240/67,59R Westbury Homes (Holdings) Ltd
G306/1200, 1201 George Wimpey (UK) Ltd & The Governors of Repton
School
J733/364 Mrs P E Broderick
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.39 The land south of Hilton Road is about 0.5ha in extent. It lies on the
western edge of Etwall, between a disused railway to the west and
housing in The Bancroft to the east. Planning permission has been
granted for housing development on the land immediately to the north to
form an extension of the recent development at Old Station Close and
the settlement boundary for this part of Etwall has been revised to take
account of this in the RDDLP.
4.11.40 Judging from the ordnance survey plan, a small wedge shaped part of
the western edge of the site appears to have formed part of the yard
previously occupied by Mitchell Industries. And, according to the
objector, the rest of the land was used a plant demonstration area. I
acknowledge that the housing that has been built to the north of the land
has altered the character of the land’s surrounds somewhat, but I do not
consider that this has changed the status of the yard part of site. To my
mind it is reasonable to regard this as previously developed land.
Moreover, as the rest of the land appears have been used in association
with the use of the yard, my view is that it also displays the
characteristics of brownfield, as opposed to Greenfield, land. In addition,
while concern about the implications for washland appear to have been a
factor weighing against the allocation of the land for housing in the
previous Local Plan, the Environment Agency now raise no objection in
this respect, subject to the implementation of certain ameliorative
measures.
4.11.41 My impression was that the land in question falls within the wider
physical confines of Etwall. It effectively forms an indentation between
the disused railway to the west and the housing to the east the north –
both existing and approved; its contribution to the rural setting of the
village is minimal. The former railway on the other hand represents a
clear physical limit that distinguishes the built-up area of this part of the
village from the countryside beyond. Extending the settlement boundary
to line in with the clearly defined southern limit of the village
immediately to the east would be no more than rounding off within the
overall pattern of settlement. And, the development of the land in
question would allow for a modest expansion of the village which would
have a scarcely perceptible impact upon its setting or form.
159

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
4.11.42 The land south of the Etwall Bypass is large field some 3.4 ha in
extent. It lies on the northern fringe of Etwall and is bounded to the
north by the Bypass and to the south-east by the former main road.
There is a recently built pocket of housing the site’s south-east corner,
but the rest of the site’s western boundary is alongside a field, as is its
eastern boundary. My impression was that the site has little or no
physical affinity with the main body of the village and cannot reasonably
be regarded as forming part of its wider confines. Instead, as I perceived
it, the land has a much closer visual and physical relationship with the
countryside that surrounds Etwall. According to the objector, the holding
is too small for beneficial agricultural use and the land is not of high
quality. That, however, is not sufficient reason on its own to justify the
development of open countryside.
4.11.43 Allocating the land for housing could provide a degree of additional
choice insofar as housing provision is concerned and, although the site is
beyond the existing built–up limits of the village it is not too distant from
the facilities that Etwall offers. It is claimed that the site would be
particularly suited to a development aimed at older people and I agree
that it is much closer to the village’s facilities than Tynefield Court, to
which to the objector refers. But, other than a reference to an ageing
population, there is no evidence that shows that there is an especially
compelling need to provide additional accommodation for the elderly in
Etwall, or that it should be on the scale that could be accommodated on
a site of this size.
4.11.44 While appropriate landscaping could help ameliorate the impact of
residential development envisaged here, developing the site for housing
would represent a significant and harmful incursion into the countryside
and would be very poorly related to the scale and pattern of settlement
in evidence in the locality. I do not therefore accept that development of
the objection site for housing necessarily complies with the principles of
sustainable development contained in national, regional or strategic
planning policies. Nor do I consider the site is, in principle, suitable for
development within Classes C1 (hotels) or C2 (residential institutions).
Specific proposals for such development are more appropriately
considered against the criteria contained in Policies LRT7 and C2.
4.11.45 The objection site at Egginton Road, 3.9ha in extent, lies on the southwest
fringe of Etwall. The main facilities of the village lie within 1km of
the site and the nearest bus route passes some 300m to the north of the
indicative access point to the site. And, I acknowledge that the surrounds
of the sewage treatment works to the north-west, together with the
dwellings in Chestnut Grove to the north, and the frontage development
flanking the western side of Egginton Road give a degree of containment
to the northern part of the land.
4.11.46 I am mindful that the land in question differs from the site presented to
the previous Local Plan inquiry in that does not extend as far south away
from the village, towards the A50. However, whereas the northern part
of the land slopes gently downhill in a northerly direction towards the
existing housing, my impression was that the southern portion of the
land, which also extends further to the south than the ribbon of housing
160

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
on the west side of Egginton Road, forms more of a plateau. As a result,
even though the southern edge of the land is marked by a hedge and
there is another hedgerow alongside the road, my opinion is that the
housing proposed would extend beyond what can reasonably be
regarded as the wider physical confines of this part of Etwall.
4.11.47 Notwithstanding the objector’s landscape assessor’s conclusions, and the
methodology upon which they are based, I consider that the southern
portion of the housing development envisaged would appear as a very
prominent and intrusive feature to passers-by approaching the village
from the south along what is one of the main entrances to the village.
The intended structural landscaping for the southern and western
margins of the site referred to by the objector would help offset this, but
it is likely to be some time before any planting became fully effective in
this respect, in which case I attach little weigh to this factor. Indeed, my
concern is fuelled further by the finding of the appellant’s noise
consultant that most of the site falls within noise category B as identified
in PPG24.
4.11.48 The latter consideration does not necessarily render the site unsuitable
for housing, but the objector indicates that measures to protect the
development from noise would be appropriate; in particular, I note that
the provision of close boarded fencing on the site’s southern and western
boundaries is suggested. Although this suggestion is prefaced by the
word ‘may’, such treatment would tend to exacerbate the intrusive effect
of the development. I see this as a further disadvantage which adds to
my concern. Notwithstanding the Council’s criticism of the methodology
employed in the odour measurement survey carried out on behalf of the
objector, there is no evidence to show that odour emissions from the
Etwall sewage treatment works have given rise to any problems, in
which case I am not inclined to place much weight on the concerns
expressed in this respect. This, however, is not sufficient to overcome
my concern as whole about allocating the land in question for housing.
4.11.49 The omission site at Willington Road is on the eastern edge of Etwall.
It is some 2.5ha in extent and forms part of a larger 9.5ha holding
which, according to the objectors, could also be made available if need
be. The main facilities of the village also within 1km of the centre of site
and the nearest bus route is some 600m away.
4.11.50 The site has no special landscape or nature conservation designation and
no other physical constraints have been drawn to my attention. Indeed,
the landscape in this part of the village fringe appeared to me fairly
bland and undistinguished. Consequently, I am inclined to agree with the
objectors’ view that the visual impact of the development envisaged
would be limited and localised. That said, although the site adjoins
housing to the west and north, my impression was that neither the
objection site, nor the larger ‘alternative’ area, enjoy a strong degree of
self-containment. In particular, although the former is defined by
hedgerows to the east and south, they did not appear to me to be strong
physical features. Contrary to the objectors’ assertion, I do not consider
that the greenery on the site’s southern edge is sufficiently profuse that
it makes the site appear “well screened” from the countryside beyond.
161

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
4.11.51 In my opinion, development of the land in question would appear as a
somewhat arbitrary expansion of this part of Etwall, its form being
influenced largely by the boundary of the large field, rather than any
marked physical feature on the ground. I have similar concerns about
the larger site, albeit that part of its north-eastern boundary would be
defined by Willington Road. Furhtermore, I am concerned that this would
be a very major addition to Etwall - the objectors mention about 300
dwellings - and would not sit comfortably with the scale and pattern of
settlement.
4.11.52 Mrs P E Broderick seeks the extension of Etwall’s development boundary
to include her property at Marsh View, on the northern side of
Burnaston Lane, just east of its junction with Main Road. I was not
provided with a plan of the suggested new boundary but SDDC’s rebuttal
shows that the objection relates to the curtilage of Marsh View,
extending to some 0.17ha. The objector says that her property is a
natural part of the village, with boundaries following those of
development on Main Road and Lawn Avenue, a modern estate opposite
the site.
4.11.53 Although a residential curtilage is defined as “previously developed land”
in PPG3, preference is given to the development of such land within
settlements. I consider that Burnaston Lane is a firm boundary to the
built framework of this part of Etwall; the objection site lies outside it.
Any intensification of development in Marsh View’s curtilage would
intrude into the open countryside and be unacceptably prominent when
viewed both from the lane and from the north.
Findern
Objections
G7/1282, 1286 William Davis Ltd
G217/1395 Roy Williams and Company
G246/557, 559, Derby Self-Build Housing Society Ltd
561
G253/259, 264, Countany Ltd
63R
G258/1386 Miller Homes East Midlands
J923/1358 Mr R W Swift
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.54 The Derby Self-Build Housing Society Ltd seek the identification of land
on the northern side of Common Piece Lane, on the eastern outskirts
of Findern, as a site for affordable housing. They say that it is
immediately available for this use and that it should be included in the
plan “in line with government policies”. No plan has been provided, but
the objection refers to 3 Ordnance Survey parcel numbers.
4.11.55 The area involved extends to about 4.8ha and is to the north-east and
east of the Sycamore Avenue estate. The land contains a number of
mature hedgerows and is separated from the adjacent estate by a high
hedge which in my view marks a firm boundary to this part of Findern.
162

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
Despite the presence of overhead power lines and what appear to be
above-ground sewage pipes, I agree with SDDC that the site’s character
is very rural. In my opinion, housing on the site would unacceptably
intrude into the countryside. Because of its clear separation from the
estate and because it is served by a narrow and twisting rural lane, it
would not be well-related to the village.
4.11.56 The objections specifically seek an allocation for affordable housing, but
there is no provision for such a restricted allocation. Policy H10
envisages schemes coming forward on “exception sites”, but the
objectors have not demonstrated the level of any need for such housing
arising from the village nor shown how the benefits of low cost housing
can be maintained for future occupiers.
4.11.57 They also request the deletion of the reference to “allotment gardens”
from land which they own next to Sycamore Avenue, shown on the
Proposals Map. However, this is part of the Ordnance Survey base map
and in any event the notation appears factually correct.
4.11.58 An objector seeks to include about 0.75ha on the eastern side of Doles
Lane within the development boundary and to allocate it for housing. It
is argued that the site has natural boundaries, is well contained within
existing development, and would round it off. He points out that Findern
is acknowledged as a sustainable location for development. He considers
that proposed allocations at Willington, Boulton Moor and Hilton would
have more adverse impact. These are addressed under Policies H5, H6
and H7.
4.11.59 The site is an open field which adjoins the rear of a small estate at
Wallfields Close, to the south. On the opposite side of Doles Lane is the
end of a ribbon of widely-spaced dwellings, within the development
boundary. The site’s northern boundary adjoins the curtilage of an
isolated dwelling, and there is an open field to the east.
4.11.60 Findern is defined as a “serviced village” subject to Policy H1.A(II),
where housing on brownfield land within the development boundary may
be permitted. As the site is greenfield, its inclusion in the boundary
would not facilitate housing on it.
4.11.61 In my opinion the curtilages of the properties on Wallfields Close form a
firm boundary to this part of Findern. Beyond it is sporadic development
in what is properly regarded as open countryside. Development on the
objection site would extend the village into the countryside, harming its
appearance. Housing on the opposite side of the lane extends further
north than does Wallfields Close, but this is at low density and in any
event I do not consider that its presence justifies “rounding off”. Indeed,
the objection site extends further north than does this ribbon, and so
could be used as an argument for further extensions, thereby
compounding the conflict with the Plan’s strategy and the harm to the
countryside.
4.11.62 Another objection site on Doles Lane is agricultural land of some 4ha,
which lies behind 2 ribbons of houses at the angle where the lane turns
sharply north to run close to the A38. This site has a frontage to the
lane, about 100m long, some 250m from the bend; a public footpath
runs from this frontage, through the site, cutting off the angle.
163

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
4.11.63 Two separate objections relate to this land; one seeks to extend the
development boundary out from Findern to include the site frontage and
the 2 ribbons of housing, as well as a smaller ribbon on the opposite side
of the lane, before the bend. At present the boundary stops about 200m
short of the site frontage. The second promotes the allocation of the
rest of the site, and agrees that this would be dependent on the
extension of the development boundary. Up to 100 dwellings are
envisaged.
4.11.64 The objectors say that other development boundaries include outlying
areas and that Findern is an acknowledged sustainable settlement. They
also argue that the site would provide a choice of housing, including
affordable, close to facilities, employment and public transport to Derby.
They say that there is a need to allocate additional housing land in
sustainable locations, and that this site meets the requirement; it would
be a sustainable extension to an existing village, as favoured by PPG3,
with no effect on any important environmental assets.
4.11.65 The ribbons outside the existing development boundary extend a
considerable way out of the village and I consider that the existing
boundary on either side of Doles Lane marks the end of the built
framework of the village. Beyond this line is a relatively wide gap of
either undeveloped land or isolated dwellings, between the built
framework and the isolated ribbons. I consider that these ribbons are
not physically or visually part of the village. I see no justification to
extend the development boundary to include them, as this would not
respect the pattern of open land. Similar ribbons in other settlements,
including Linton and Repton, are properly excluded from development
boundaries; I address similar objections in relation to these villages and
reach similar conclusions.
4.11.66 Doles Lane is a regular bus route, and I agree that many of the village’s
facilities are within the 1.6km which PPG13’s companion “A Guide to
Better Practice” regards as the threshold beyond which only a small
proportion of people will walk. However, while these are mainly in the
village centre, the local school is a considerable distance from the site;
SDDC puts this at almost 3km, and the objectors agree that it is not
within comfortable walking distance. However, the school’s location does
not to my mind invalidate Findern’s classification as a “serviced village”,
as most of its housing is within a comfortable walking distance. In my
opinion the site’s poor relationship to the school means that in practice
most journeys between them would be made by private car; in this
respect the site would be unsustainable.
4.11.67 There is an acknowledged need to release greenfield land in the Derby
sub-area. While Findern is close to employment centres and has good
public transport, including to Derby and Burton, in my opinion its
location makes it less sustainable than other greenfield sites closer to
facilities and with higher levels of public transport. In any event,
sustainability is not the only relevant matter when considering new
allocations, and I turn to the site’s visual impact.
4.11.68 At present the 2 ribbons of housing adjacent to the site clearly appear to
be within the open countryside. This is both because of the gap
separating them from the main built-up part of Findern, and the
presence of open fields behind, as well as across roads in front of them.
164

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
In contrast, housing on the objection site would erode this rural setting
and, by filling in the angle between the ribbons, would unacceptably
consolidate development well outside the village. Despite the presence
of vegetation which provides some screening, I consider that
development on the site would increase the urbanisation of the area
between the main built-up area of Findern and the edge of Derby,
harming the area’s character.
4.11.69 These objectors also refer to the need for affordable housing, but have
neither quantified any local need nor shown how the benefits of low cost
housing can be maintained for future occupiers. My reference to Policy
H10, above, also applies to these objections.
4.11.70 Three objections variously referred to the Plan in general, Policy H2 and
the amended Policy H1 in the RDDLP, but they all promote a housing
omission site at Landown Farm, Bakeacre Lane so it is more
appropriate to consider them in this section. This objection site consists
of two parcels of land on the south-eastern side of the lane, separated
on the frontage by a field. At its nearest point the smaller, some 6.5ha
in extent, is about 100m from the nearest part of Findern. The larger
area, of around 10ha, contains a house about 450m from the village and
a range of farm buildings. Some are set about 200m into the fields from
the farmhouse.
4.11.71 These objections, and those to other policies, oppose any parts of the
Plan which do not encourage development or provide for the optimum
use of the objection site. The objectors contend that policies relating to
the development of brownfield sites outside settlements are unduly
restrictive and that provision should be made for their development; this
point clearly relates to housing and is addressed in section 4.2 As an
alternative, they request either the inclusion of land in a development
boundary or a specific allocation as a housing site. The plan
accompanying the objections is said not to be intended to indicate the
proposed additions to the development boundary or the promoted
allocation, but to initiate discussions.
4.11.72 SDDC says that some of the modern buildings have planning permission
for commercial purposes in accordance with the aim of diversifying the
rural economy. It accepts that these are on brownfield land. Leaving
these aside the rest of the land is clearly greenfield under the terms of
PPG3. It is far in excess of any area required to address the shortfall of
housing land in the Derby sub-area. Moreover it is well outside the builtup
framework of Findern, and served by a narrow lane, so is not wellrelated
to the village. To my mind there is no justification to allocate the
site for housing.
4.11.73 The objectors say that there is no reason why the site should not be
included in the village’s development boundary, but in my opinion the
distance from the village makes this illogical. It would also breach Policy
H5 of the Structure Plan, which requires development to be located
within the wider physical confines of settlements. Moreover as Policy
H1.A(II) only provides for the development of brownfield land within
such boundaries, this would not facilitate housing on the greenfield part.
4.11.74 The objectors also claim that this type of brownfield site is sustainable,
but it is so far from the village and its facilities, and from employment
165

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
centres, that in my opinion any journeys would inevitably be made by
private car. The site’s location is therefore unsustainable.
4.11.75 As a point of principle I consider that it is inappropriate for modern farm
buildings in such locations, which PPG3 defines as greenfield land, to
become brownfield by acquiring commercial uses and then be considered
suitable for housing. This procedure would not only harm the rural
economy but create an unsustainable pattern of housing development.
4.11.76 Bakeacre Lane runs through a large area promoted in objection
G258/1386 as a further omission site. This area runs from the Findern
interchange on the A38, eastwards to existing development at Stenson
Fields. In the north the site extends up to the Derby City boundary, and
to the south it covers land as far south as the A50 and the outskirts of
Findern. Its area is some 480ha and consists largely of open farmland.
It includes the omission site at Landown Farm (which I address earlier in
this section) and those at Stenson Fields / Stenson Meadows and Sinfin,
which I consider under those headings.
4.11.77 The objectors say that the site is highly sustainable and accords with the
principles of PPG3. However, its size means that it could accommodate
far more housing than is required to meet the shortfall of housing in the
Derby sub-area. Moreover it would involve the unacceptable loss of an
extensive area of pleasant open countryside and lead to the coalescence
of Findern with Derby.
4.11.78 In the section relating to Littleover, I consider objection G243/1425,
which promotes a “mixed use development” at Highfields Farm. As
revised at the Inquiry, that site occupies some 38ha and forms the
north-western part of the area subject to objection G258/1386.
4.11.79 An objection seeks to allocate about 1ha of land between the A50 and
Willington Road, for residential purposes. The site is some 4-500m
south of the main built-up area of Findern, but there is a short ribbon of
houses on the opposite south-eastern side of Willington Road. There is a
detached house a short distance to the south-west and the site’s northeastern
boundary adjoins a recreation area.
4.11.80 As the site is greenfield, its inclusion in the boundary would not facilitate
housing on it under Policy H1.A(II). As far as a specific allocation is
concerned, the site is well outside the development boundary of Findern,
and separated from it by the A50. It is not well-related to the village.
Despite the presence of isolated groups of houses, I consider that the
area south of the development boundary is properly part of the open
countryside. Development of the site would in my opinion appear as a
prominent intrusion into the countryside, consolidating the nearby
sporadic housing. It would be particularly obtrusive when seen from
Heath Lane as it descends from the bridge over the A50.
Foston
Objections
B12/151 Foston and Scropton Parish Council
G226/1158, Gainsborough Property
1166
166

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.81 The objectors promote the allocation of land between the new A50 and
the old Uttoxeter Road, to the east of Foston. The objections relate to 2
adjoining sites which together extend to about 7ha. The smaller is on
the frontage of Uttoxeter Road and extends some 375m eastwards to a
point opposite Hay Lane. The supporting plan shows “5 individual
prestige detached houses” at the western end of the site, and “8 low cost
houses for local residents” near the centre. These are said to be for
people working locally. Beyond a gap to their east would be a building
containing a public house, convenience store, sports pavilion and
community hall. At the eastern end of the site a sports field is shown.
The second site is to the south of the first and also extends a further
250m eastwards, generally set back from the Uttoxeter Road frontage,
but with an access point opposite Hay Lane.
4.11.82 It is argued that the sites are not of strategic significance and can be
allocated without compromising the aims of the Plan or principles of
sustainability. It is claimed that the land is brownfield because of
previous military use, and is unusable for agriculture; failure to allocate
it is argued to conflict with Structure Plan Policy GDS4. It is claimed that
the sites are well related to the strategic highway network and local
employment centres, and that allocation would reduce the need to travel
by private car. This is in view of the proximity of the Dove Valley Park
and other employment areas, such as Foston Hall and Dovegate Prisons.
4.11.83 The smaller site is said to be an alternative for a hotel / motel promoted
in objection G226/1152, although the objectors say that all uses could be
accommodated on the combined site.
4.11.84 I address the status of Foston in the settlement hierarchy in section 4.3,
and conclude that it is properly subject to Policy H1.A(IV) in view of the
absence of community facilities. Rather than being a “preferred location
for local housing and other services”, I consider that it is inappropriate
for development other than that envisaged under the Policy.
4.11.85 Even excluding the proposed non-housing elements, applying PPG3’s
recommendations on minimum densities means that in the region of 150
dwellings could be accommodated. In my opinion it would be
unsustainable to site such a large development in a small settlement
with no existing facilities.
4.11.86 I appreciate that some community facilities are proposed, but no
mechanism is suggested to ensure that they are provided in tandem
with, or in advance of, the proposed housing. Nor is it demonstrated
that there is a local need for them such as would secure their viability or
warrant new housing in the nature of “enabling development”. In any
event, even if it could be ensured that all residents would be employed in
the vicinity, they and their families would still have to travel for many
day-to-day needs. For example, there is no school within walking
distance. Despite the proximity of local employment centres, I do not
consider that housing on either, or both, of the sites would be
sustainable.
4.11.87 SDDC agrees that the land was used in connection with a nearby airfield.
However, it appears to me that much has now blended into the
landscape and so does not fall within PPG3’s definition of “previously
167

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
developed land”. It is therefore properly regarded as greenfield land.
SDDC accepts that there may be difficulties in using the land for
agriculture, but I agree that this does not mean that it is suitable for
housing development.
4.11.88 This is a large greenfield area and, given the limited potential for growth
in Foston, development on it would clearly conflict with the Plan’s
strategy. It would also be a major and harmful intrusion into the
countryside, and create a housing area significantly larger than the
existing settlement.
4.11.89 The objection scheme includes low cost housing for those employed
locally, but in my opinion any such benefits would not justify such a large
housing development away from existing community facilities. However,
if it could be demonstrated that there is a local need for affordable
housing, whose occupation could be effectively controlled, this could be
considered under Policy H10.
Hilton
Objections
G221/1124 Hilton Industrial Estate Ltd
H12/1112 Don Amott Caravans Ltd
G182/1309,1313,1315 Hallam Land Management Ltd
1317,1319,1320,1322,
1339
G301/1080 Trenport Investments Ltd.
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.90 Policy H1 refers to housing within listed settlements but objector
G221/1124 seeks to have the Policy amended to permit housing within
“or well-related to” settlements. It is not clear to me which aspect of the
Policy he seeks to amend; he refers to the last part of it, but this relates
to greenfield land. In any event, I address similar objections in section
4.2 above.
4.11.91 The land between Derby Road and the A50 is some 23.5ha in extent.
Hallam Land Management seek the allocation of the land for mixed-use
development. This would comprise a minimum of 600 dwellings (of which
200 would be affordable units), 4.7ha of employment land, 5ha for a
village centre with shopping, educational, recreation and community
facilities, and a new road access to serve Hilton Industrial Estate. The
objectors consider that Hilton is a good location for strategic housing and
employment growth, and that it performs well against PPG3
sustainability criteria. They therefore recommend the settlement should
be subject to a comprehensive planning appraisal, with a view to this
land being released for development towards the end of the Plan period.
4.11.92 The objections were originally lodged in relation to distinct field parcels
within the 23.5ha. However, it is the objectors’ wish that the site be
considered on a comprehensive basis and that is the approach I have
adopted. The site is predominantly greenfield land, but includes the
Hilton Industrial Estate, off Sutton Lane, and some housing fronting onto
Derby Road.
168

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
4.11.93 If my recommendations in respect of Willington power station (Policy H5)
are accepted, then there is a need for additional land for housing to be
allocated within the Derby Sub-Area that is capable of making an
appropriate contribution to the housing requirement up to 2011.
4.11.94 On the basis of the advice in PPG3 and having regard to the nature of the
District, the Council has identified Hilton as an urban area. However,
earlier in this chapter I have set out my concerns that the Council’s
criterion for distinguishing ‘Serviced Villages’ from others (seemingly to
provide a basis for what is urban and what is not) does not seem to rest
on particularly strong foundations. And, in this context, I am particularly
mindful of the character of Hilton. Notwithstanding its classification as an
urban area for the purposes of the housing sites search sequence
adopted by the Council: in essence Hilton is still a village. Furthermore,
there is no dispute that it is a village with a somewhat limited range of
facilities and services. As such, I do not consider it to be a location
suitable for significant sizeable new housing developments on greenfield
land.
4.11.95 With regard to the objector’s suggestion that Hilton should be the subject
of a comprehensive planning appraisal, that is a matter for them to
undertake if they so choose. For the reasons set out in both the
preamble to this section of the report on omission sites and the
preceding paragraph, I consider it inappropriate to recommend the
allocation for development of this sizeable, predominantly greenfield site
between Derby Road and the A50.
4.11.96 There are also objections specifically in relation to Hilton Industrial
Estate on the eastern side of Sutton Lane. The owners of the estate
seek to have it allocated for a mixed development, including exception
housing and modern industrial units and offices, with the housing
component of the development reflected in Table 3 of the Plan.
4.11.97 The site extends to about 6ha and is about 200m north of the nearest
dwellings in Hilton, separated from them by fields. The A50 runs to the
north of the site. Part of the site’s north-eastern section falls within the
Hilton Gravel Pits SSSI. The western half of the site is occupied by a
variety of industrial buildings of various sizes and ages, which provide
space for about 30 different enterprises. Open land around the buildings
is used for various forms of storage and for parking and manoeuvring of
vehicles.
4.11.98 The land is well outside Hilton’s built framework and so is not wellrelated
to the village. Although it is clearly a brownfield site, Policy
H1.A(II) only provides for new housing on such sites within Hilton’s
development boundary. In my view, there is no case to extend this
boundary up to the site, as it would include an extensive area of
intervening greenfield land. Unlike allocation H6 to the village’s south
and east, the site is not on the edge of Hilton and so would not be a
brownfield urban extension. It is therefore relatively low in PPG3’s search
sequence. For these reasons it would be inappropriate to allocate any
part of the site for housing.
4.11.99 The objector refers only to exception housing, for which a specific
allocation would be inappropriate. In any event Policy H10 requires an
applicant to demonstrate that there is a genuine local need for such
169

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
housing which would not be otherwise met. No such evidence has been
provided, and I note that some affordable housing will be provided on
allocation H6. Moreover, Policy H10 requires such housing to comply
with other policies of the Plan and in this case I agree with SDDC that
there would be likely to be some loss of employment land; this would
conflict with Policy EMP3. In addition, to locate affordable housing close
to employment on this site is likely to produce either unacceptable living
conditions for future residents, or constraints on the operation of existing
users.
4.11.100 Development of the entire objection site would affect part of the SSSI
and in my view this would produce an adverse impact with no overriding
justification. I also note the possibility of the presence of protected
species on parts of the site. I have no information as to whether they
are confined to the SSSI, but the suggested allocation is likely to have
some adverse impact on them without adequate mitigation measures.
4.11.101 The site appears to me to be well used by a number of enterprises of
various types, and is a valuable resource of local employment reasonably
close to housing. The Plan supports the retention of employment
facilities and in principle redevelopment or upgrading of the existing
buildings for employment purposes would accord with its strategy. No
allocation is necessary to facilitate this.
4.11.102 In a statement dated 10 April 2003, Don Amott Caravans Ltd withdrew
objections promoting an amendment to Policy H1 and seeking the
allocation of land at Egginton Road for housing, or its inclusion in
Hilton’s development boundary. However, their statement brings the
brownfield status of the land to my attention in the event that my
consideration of objections to proposed allocations means that
insufficient land is allocated. In view of my recommendations on the
proposed housing site at Willington (Policy H5), and the consequent
shortfall in housing land in the Derby sub-area, it is pertinent to address
this site.
4.11.103 The land in question was formerly part of the Hilton MOD depot, part of
which is included in allocation H6. According to the master plan
submitted with the objection the proposed housing area would occupy
about 4.5ha on the western side of Egginton Road and is shown to the
north of a link from that road into the allocation. There is no dispute
that this land is brownfield and is close to village facilities, and the
owners say that between 135 and 180 dwellings could be accommodated
at a density of between 30 and 40 per hectare. They assume that
between 20% and 30% would be affordable and that there would be
similar requirements for such matters as open space and educational
facilities as in allocation H6.
4.11.104 For its place, SDDC refers to the potential for this land, and other areas
within the same ownership, to be treated comprehensively. It points to
possible benefits in terms of access, community benefits and the ability
to facilitate a more logical development with allocation H6, so long as the
overall extent of the employment allocation is not compromised.
4.11.105 SDDC says that at present the land is not within or adjacent to a defined
settlement boundary, but that it intends to extend the boundary once
the allocations are developed. However, in the light of an objection that
170

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
development boundaries should include allocations, SDDC invites me to
consider whether Hilton’s boundary should include this land.
4.11.106 Even though I have reservations about Hilton’s ability to accommodate
significant levels of additional housing development, in line with the
approach of PPG3, it is appropriate that some preference should be given
to a brownfield site such as this immediately next to the built-up area of
a ‘Serviced Village’. Egginton Road is a firm and logical boundary to the
physical framework of this part of the village and in my opinion it would
be reasonable to consider extending Hilton’s development boundary to
include this land. The site could become a specific allocation, either as
part of an extended allocation H6, or separately.
Littleover
Objection
G243/1422,1425 David Wilson Homes, Miller Homes, Taylor Woodrow
Developments
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.107 Land at Highfields Farm Littleover, lies on the south western side of
Derby, between the new Heatherton development in Derby and the
A5250, Rykneld Road. Two objections (G243/1422 & 1425) were lodged
in respect of a large area extending southwards beyond the A5250/A38
roundabout and almost up to Findern village. One objection (G243/1425)
sought the allocation of the site for mixed-use development. The other
objection (G243/1422) sought the inclusion of Highfields Farm on a
supplementary list of sites that could be brought forward for
development should housing completions during the Plan period not
meet the required figure. At the inquiry the extent of the omission site
was substantially reduced, by the deletion of almost all of the land to the
south of Highfields Farm buildings. The revised site covers approximately
38 ha and it is that reduced area to which I have had regard in
considering the objections.
4.11.108 Land at Highfields Farm was included within a substantial omission site
on either side of Bakeacre Lane and running from Findern to the Stenson
Fields estate. I consider objection G258/1386, which promoted it, within
the section relating to omission sites at Findern.
4.11.109 I have explained earlier in this chapter why I do not consider it
appropriate to have a reserve allocation of housing sites. However, in
view of my recommendation in relation to the H5 site in Willington and in
the absence, within the Derby Sub–Area, of other previously-developed
urban land sufficient to accommodate the number of new dwellings
required during the Plan period, it is appropriate to consider housing
development on a greenfield urban extension site such as Highfields
Farm.
4.11.110 The objectors have referred to the site as one suitable for mixed-use
development. I know of no precise definition of the term ‘mixed-use
development’, but in this context I have had regard to the advice in
PPG3, PPG13 and the DETR publication ‘Planning for Sustainable
171

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
Development: Towards Better Practice’. It seems to me that mixed-use
development is where a range of different activities: residential, retail,
employment etc. are contained within one building or group of buildings;
as is often found in the centres of towns and cities. None of the
evidence before me suggests that this is what is proposed for Highfields
Farm. Rather I understand it to be the objectors’ aim to develop the site
primarily with housing, whilst making provision for employment and
other facilities adjacent to and within discrete parts of the site. The
primary aim is to provide new housing and accordingly I have considered
Highfields Farm as fundamentally a housing omission site.
4.11.111 The site appears to be generally free of physical and environmental
constraints to its development. The Council has expressed concern that
building on the land would substantially erode the green space between
Derby and Findern. Such an outcome would have been a genuine cause
for concern with the original objection site. But with building limited to
the reduced site, then there would still be a gap between the two
settlements sufficient in size to avoid harm to the village setting of
Findern.
4.11.112 The site has ready access to the A38. With regard to public transport the
area is currently served by a half-hourly bus service. In order to provide
an adequately accessible service from any new development to jobs,
shops and facilities within Derby, new routes may need to be developed
and the frequency of service augmented. These are matters for further
consideration. It would also be appropriate to consider the scope for
improving walking, cycling and public transport access from Derby to the
nearby Toyota works.
4.11.113 The site is well-related to the substantial Heatherton development that is
nearing completion on adjoining land within the confines of Derby. Some
of the physical framework necessary for building a community has been
provided within Heatherton and there is scope for that to be enlarged
upon with the development of this omission site. The extent to which
developers’ contributions, towards improved educational and other
community facilities, might be required is a matter for further
consideration.
4.11.114 Having regard to the factors set out in the preceding paragraphs, I
consider that the allocation of land at Highfields Farm for housing would
represent a more sustainable form of development for the area than that
proposed under Policy H5 for Willington.
Long Lane
Objection
G226/1127 Gainsborough Property
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.115 The objector seeks to restore a development boundary for Long Lane and
to include an area of car park and garden behind the Three Horseshoes
public house within it. The site has an area of some 0.15ha and extends
behind both the public house and adjacent dwellings which front the
road.
172

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
4.11.116 In section 4.3 above, I consider the point as to whether Long Lane should
have a development boundary and conclude that it should not. In any
event the site is clearly not a brownfield infill plot within an otherwise
built-up frontage, but is rather located behind existing linear
development. In these circumstances, even if Long Lane were to have a
development boundary, housing there would not accord with the limited
types of development which are appropriate in a settlement subject to
Policy H1.A(III). The objector points out that current government
guidance supports limited development in rural areas, but the
modification to the Policy in the RDDLP provides for this at Long Lane.
4.11.117 Moreover housing sited so far from the highway would not accord with
the existing pattern of development, and so would not be well-related to
the settlement. It would not to my mind either create a logical boundary
or form “rounding off”. Existing trees and buildings would screen
development on the site to an extent, but it would still be visible from
some directions and appear as an intrusion into the countryside.
4.11.118 SDDC is also concerned about inadequate visibility on to the highway,
although I note that the access already serves the public house and that
permission was granted for a larger car park in 1988. In these
circumstances, matters of visibility do not of themselves argue against
the objection.
Melbourne and Kings Newton
Objections
G258/1384 Miller Homes East Midlands
J539/1048 Mr A M Christie
J917/1079 Mr S Frawley 5
K26/1101, The Trustees of the Melbourne Estate
1118, 1119,
1120
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.119 Objection is raised to the reference to Melbourne in the explanatory text
within the housing chapter, which says that “major expansion is
considered inappropriate, as it would adversely affect the important
historical character of the area”. It is suggested that this is replaced by
wording which recognises Melbourne’s importance as a service centre
and accepts that limited peripheral growth could be accommodated
without affecting its historic character. However, I see nothing in the
explanatory text which opposes the principle of some limited growth;
the opposition is to major expansion. I see no need to change the text.
4.11.120 Objectors say that little significance is given to the fact that Melbourne is
the largest population centre in the Derby sub-area, and has a significant
range of services, facilities and employment opportunities. However, the
Plan does acknowledge that it is the largest settlement and the primary
shopping centre in the sub-area, and the shopping chapter indicates that
further measures are needed to reinforce its position in the retail
5 This objection incorporated another omission site, at Shardlow. This is addressed below.
173

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
hierarchy. There is a wide range of community services and employment
facilities and public transport is good.
4.11.121 Against this background, some objectors say that it is surprising that the
Plan prevents significant new housing development. They argue that
housing allocations would accord with PPGs 1, 3 and 7 by sustaining
services and facilities, and so maintain the town’s position. It is
contended that Melbourne should be the first choice location for
additional development in the sub-area, but instead there is no provision
for any growth. Development on the periphery would reduce the
potential for “town cramming”, which would harm the historic core.
4.11.122 Objection is also made to the detailed results of SDDC’s sustainability
matrix as far as Melbourne is concerned; different weightings for various
factors are suggested, and it is claimed that the evaluation exercise
wrongly shows a deficiency of places at the Infants’ School. I address
general objections to the matrix in section 4.1. However, even if the
various weightings were altered as suggested, Melbourne would still
retain its high position in the hierarchy, and there would be no material
impact on the Plan’s strategy. I take SDDC’s point that the scoring
system was designed to do no more than to provide cut-off points within
the hierarchy to determine which sections of Policy H1 should apply to
particular settlements.
4.11.123 Melbourne is a free-standing town and is clearly an important service
centre and any description in the Plan as a “village” rather than a “town”
does not alter this point. SDDC says that it carried out no UCS as there
are few brownfield sites, but without an adequate study, this cannot be
certain. However, I consider that any sites identified through a UCS
would not have significantly reduced the shortfall of housing land in the
Derby sub-area, and there will still be a need to identify greenfield land.
Melbourne scores highly in SDDC’s sustainability matrix; although I
have questioned its details, I accept that in principle it is a very
sustainable location. Moreover it is small enough for sites on its
outskirts to be accessible to services by walking or cycling.
4.11.124 SDDC considers that major expansion would be inappropriate because
this would adversely affect the area’s important historical character. I
agree that there are 2 Conservation Areas in the built-up area, but there
are modern developments around them, and these have already had an
impact on the character. In my opinion SDDC’s argument has little force
in relation to those parts of the town’s periphery away from the most
historic parts. Appropriate greenfield extensions can score highly in the
search sequence; there is no requirement in RPG8 or the Structure Plan
that urban extensions must be next to the built-up area of Derby, or that
references to development on the periphery of Derby cannot apply to
settlements, such as Melbourne, close to the city but not adjoining it.
4.11.125 Some objectors point to what they believe is an imbalance between
residential and employment land, in the light of an expanding
employment base, with 4.8ha having planning permission. They
promote additional housing in order to reduce this imbalance, but
provide no evidence that the additional employment development would
create an imbalance, rather than seek to alleviate an existing one. In
view of the lack of details to support the objection I give little weight to
this aspect of it. In any event SDDC points out that the identified
174

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
employment site has not been taken up. It is in fact an objection site
considered below, but its owners intend to implement the permission if it
is not allocated for housing.
4.11.126 I also give little weight to concerns about a relative decline in housing
completions in Melbourne and to the lack of land with planning
permission. To base allocations on such matters could significantly
unbalance the Plan’s strategy. In addition I have given little weight to
the extensive extracts from the report into objections to the Selby
District Plan in relation to Tadcaster as these, while no doubt interesting,
have little relevance to the specific provisions of this Plan.
4.11.127 A strip of land, some 150m long by up to 30m deep on the southern side
of Ashby Road (A514) is proposed as a housing allocation. The existing
development boundary forms the land’s eastern limit, but it continues
past the site on the western side of the road to include a long ribbon of
housing. The omission site is greenfield and was formerly used as
allotment gardens.
4.11.128 I consider that the substantial amount of trees and hedging on the site,
combined with vegetation on the adjacent former gravel pit, provides a
soft and attractive approach on the southern edge of the town. The
developable area is constrained by the site’s shape and size, which are
determined by the proximity of the gravel pits. This means that any
housing would be close to the site frontage and require the loss of most,
if not all, of the vegetation. I consider that the resulting prominent
ribbon of housing would unacceptably urbanise this currently pleasant
part of the town’s setting. I am not, however, persuaded that there
would be an adverse effect on the Conservation Area’s setting; this
starts some 70m away and is separated from the site by relatively
modern development.
4.11.129 I have no reason to differ from the views of the previous Local Plan
Inspector or of an Inspector who in 1995 dismissed an appeal against
the refusal of permission for housing on the land. Both considered that
development on the site would unacceptably harm Melbourne’s rural
setting.
4.11.130 Around 3.3ha of greenfield land on the northern side of Blackwell
Lane, and bounded on the east by the Blackwell Brook, is proposed as a
“modest residential expansion”. It is said that the site could
accommodate mixed housing, including an affordable element, together
with open space and landscaping. The objectors argue that it is wellrelated
to existing physical boundaries, close to the town centre to
enable pedestrian and cycling access, and that the scale of development
would be sympathetic to the town’s character.
4.11.131 The western part of the site slopes down to the east and is used as
allotment gardens; the objectors give no proposals to relocate them. I
consider that the site provides a soft edge to the eastern approach to
Melbourne, particularly taken with the well-treed grounds of Melbourne
Hall on the opposite side of Blackwell Lane. In my opinion housing
development, however well landscaped, would significantly harm this
aspect of the town’s character.
4.11.132 Apart from a narrow strip on the northern boundary, next to an industrial
estate, the site is within the Melbourne Conservation Area. In my view
175

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
its open character is an important element in the Conservation Area and
is a significant part of the setting of the town and of Melbourne Hall,
whose high estate wall is on the opposite side of the lane. Moreover the
site’s north-western boundary adjoins a scheduled ancient monument,
and I note that the County Archaeologist considers that part of the site
may contain an associated medieval garden.
4.11.133 I consider that any development on this site would seriously harm both
the rural setting of Melbourne and its particular historic character. I
have no reason to differ with the views of the previous Local Plan
Inspector on this point.
4.11.134 A site in agricultural use to the north of the town, to the south of Breach
Lane, is promoted as a housing site; the objectors contend that it
scores highly in a sustainability impact analysis. They argue that the site
has no noteworthy features and that it does not contribute to the
character or setting of Melbourne or form part of a strategic gap. They
believe that it would also provide much needed affordable housing and
propose that 20% of the dwellings would be affordable. It is said that
not all the site would be developed; there would be areas of open space
and landscaping.
4.11.135 There is confusion over the size of the site, with the plans attached to
the objection, the objectors’ written representations and to a subsequent
letter all differing. They say that the last is the “definitive plan”, that the
site extends to 7.19 acres (2.9ha) and would have a capacity of 80-120
dwellings (an increase from the 65-100 in the statement). Confusingly,
the letter also refers to 39 dwellings on a developable area of 3.2 acres
(1.3ha).
4.11.136 2 plans were attached to the letter, each showing different site
boundaries; one edged an area in red, and the other showed a cul-desac
layout, with 39 dwellings, on part of it. It seems to me that, from
scaling the Ordnance Survey plan, the land edged red is a little over 4ha;
SDDC’s figures appear correct. Another area, outside the site but
annotated “possible phase 2” accounts for about a further 1.4ha. This
land, added to that part within the area edged red and shown with the
layout, could account for the objector’s figure. I have based my
assessment on the area edged red, but it equally applies to the smaller
area.
4.11.137 Be that as it may, the site is an area of open land, sloping gently
southwards, on the southern side of Main Street / Breach Lane, and has
a long frontage to it. At its eastern end it adjoins a public house
curtilage in the Kings Newton Conservation Area and, to the south of
this, a bowling green and the grounds of a scout hall. The site has the
shape of an inverted ‘U’, with the arms enclosing the “possible phase 2”
and extending to rear gardens of housing at The Woodlands and Melton
Avenue. These are in Melbourne’s development boundary as currently
shown on the Proposals Map. Woodlands Close extends up to the
boundary of “possible phase 2”, but the layout shows all access from
Breach Lane.
4.11.138 To my mind, development on the frontage of Packhorse Road, is not
urban in character but is more open. Housing on the site, to its west,
would in my opinion protrude from the estate to the south into open
176

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
countryside. This would harm the rural setting both of Melbourne and of
the approach to King’s Newton, as well as of the nearest part of the
Conservation Area. In my opinion, housing on the site would not be
well-related to the settlement pattern.
4.11.139 The objectors would intend to provide high quality landscaping along
Main Street, and would pay attention to that part of the site which
adjoins the Conservation Area. They would also enhance the existing
hedge line to the west, where they say that there is a need for a
defensible boundary to Melbourne where none currently exists. I
acknowledge that these measures would be beneficial, but I consider
that any landscaping would take so long to be established on this open
site that development would be visually prominent for many years.
Moreover the proposed enhanced hedging on the line shown, is actually
in the centre of the area edged red, so would perform no screening
function to the western part of the objection site.
4.11.140 SDDC points out that, as the boundaries of the site have varied between
the duly made objection and the objectors’ letter of 29 January 2004,
they are speculative and arbitrary. The objection could produce a
precedent for development of additional areas. In my opinion there is
some force in this argument, and it would be difficult to produce a
defensible boundary anywhere between the site’s western boundary, and
the Derby road. The result could be a large area of development, and
significant harm to the setting of Melbourne and King’s Newton.
4.11.141 An objector proposes the extension of the development boundary and
the allocation of some 0.5ha to the south of Main Street, King’s
Newton, which he describes as “modest”. SDDC says that the site
includes a small part of the curtilage of a public house, which it assumes
was an error; apart from this, the land is greenfield. The site is
triangular in shape, with access off the end of Smith Avenue, in the
middle of its south-western boundary. The southern part of this
boundary adjoins a cemetery, and its south-eastern side follows a public
footpath running through open fields. The northern boundary adjoins
the curtilages of properties facing Main Street.
4.11.142 The southern boundary of the King’s Newton Conservation Area follows
this line and in my opinion the site and the adjacent cemetery provide an
important open space which maintains the identity of the Conservation
Area and of the village of King’s Newton. The site is also part of a wider
area of open land which separates Melbourne and King’s Newton. This
separate identity has already been somewhat eroded by the Smiths
Avenue / Nettlefold Crescent estate, which adjoins the south-western
part of the Conservation Area. However, this impact would be
significantly worsened by development on the objection site. Moreover I
agree that the site’s south-eastern boundary is not an easily defensible
line, so that housing on the site could set a precedent for further harmful
development.
4.11.143 An objection proposes the allocation of some 4.8ha on the eastern side
of Station Road, on the north-eastern approach to Melbourne. Its
northern section has a frontage to the road, while its southern part is set
behind a ribbon of housing. To the south of the site is an area of mixed
commercial uses on the Lillypool Industrial Estate. The land slopes down
from the road towards the Carr Brook, which forms the eastern
177

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
boundary. There are open fields across this and to the north of the site.
There is recent housing across Station Road.
4.11.144 The objectors propose a mix of housing types, including an element of
affordable housing. There would be open space and contributions to
educational and community facilities, and traffic calming measures on
Station Road. A layout plan submitted with the objection also shows
commercial development in the southern part of the site. Both this and
the proposed housing would be accessed from a roundabout on the
Station Road frontage.
4.11.145 The site is close to the town centre and public transport facilities, and
next to employment facilities on the industrial estate. There is also a
pedestrian route to the junior school which starts on Station Road,
opposite the site’s frontage. In principle I consider that it is a
sustainable location in a town where a greenfield urban extension would
score highly in terms of sustainability.
4.11.146 Sustainability is however not the only determining factor for a housing
site to be acceptable, and in my opinion visual impact is particularly
important. I cannot support some of the proposed omission sites in
Melbourne or Kings Newton because they would harm the approach to
one of the 2 Conservation Areas. In this case, however, there is already
modern development, including the industrial estate, before the
Melbourne Conservation Area is reached. As SDDC agrees, this has
already produced a suburban and non-traditional building form in this
part of the Conservation Area’s fringe.
4.11.147 I do not therefore consider that development on the objection site need
have any material impact on Melbourne’s historic character and setting.
Indeed, a well-designed development could actually enhance the
approach to the Conservation Area. I share the Council’s concern about
the urbanising effect of the roundabout shown on the illustrative layout,
but the objectors are clearly not wedded to it. The detailed design of the
junction will be considered at application stage, and SDDC would be able
to adequately control its appearance.
4.11.148 A very small part of the site touches the Conservation Area boundary,
but the setting of this part of the Conservation Area already suffers from
the proximity of utilitarian industrial buildings immediately to the south.
Any development on the nearer part of the objection site could be so
located and designed as to have a better impact on the Conservation
Area.
4.11.149 In my view it is particularly important to recognise that this site has an
extant planning permission for employment use in classes B1, B2 and
B8, last renewed in 2001 and in accordance with an allocation in the
adopted Plan. I have no reason to dispute the objectors’ statement that
they will implement this permission if the site is not allocated for
housing. In view of this recent commitment to development, the
argument that housing on the site would affect the historic character of
Melbourne can only have little weight, and I cannot agree with SDDC
that housing would have a greater urbanising effect than industry; the
appearance of the existing industrial estate demonstrates this. SDDC
says that the site is grade II agricultural land, but as this was the case
when the planning permissions were given, it cannot have significant
178

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
weight.
4.11.150 Indeed, the site slopes down from Station Road towards the east, and
this means that the prominence of development on it would be reduced
when seen from the road; from the east it would be seen against the
backdrop of existing housing. Moreover I consider that housing is likely
to be less visually obtrusive on an approach to the town than the
approved industrial development. I also note SDDC’s concession that
the level of visual impact of development on this site would be less than
on any other approach to the town.
4.11.151 I consider that in view of the site’s planning history, its sustainable
location and visual impact, a sensitively designed housing development
here could be acceptable. As there would be a shortfall in housing land
supply in the Derby sub-area if SDDC accept my recommendation to
delete the allocation at Willington, I consider that this is a site which
would merit consideration as a replacement.
4.11.152 The objectors point to SDDC’s housing needs surveys as demonstrating
that prices in the Derby fringe are relatively high and that there is a
consequent need for affordable housing, with Melbourne identified as an
area of particular need. Had I found this site to be inappropriate, these
needs would not have tipped the balance in favour of it, but allocation
would enable an element of affordable housing to be provided in
accordance with Policy H10.
4.11.153 The illustrative layout shows access to the commercial element of the
proposal running through the housing area. I do not consider that this
would be appropriate and, unless a separate access can be provided
from the south, I recommend that the site is allocated for housing only.
In view of the existing employment opportunities in Melbourne, I do not
consider that this would create any imbalance in the community;
moreover SDDC do not resist the loss of employment provision on the
site. I also agree with the objectors on the visually harmful impact if
industrial buildings were placed on the northern edge of the site. The
layout demonstrates that an area of public open space can be provided,
together with landscaping where the site adjoins the countryside.
However, as the density shown is well below PPG3’s minimum
recommendations, I have not given the layout significant weight.
4.11.154 An objector proposes that, in line with the principle in the Plan that
development boundaries should generally follow curtilages, the boundary
of Kings Newton should be extended to include land to the north of
Sleepy Lane, behind the Trent Lane frontage. This would include
several properties, including disused tennis courts behind The Elms,
which are under 0.1ha in extent. The Elms is a listed building, and
various outbuildings have been converted to residential use. He argues
that this is previously developed land as defined by PPG3 and that it is
associated with land immediately to the north, used as a haulage depot
with a current operator’s licence.
4.11.155 It is clear that he is seeking residential development on the site, and
would agree to cease the use of the adjacent land for parking goods
vehicles. He argues that this would improve the visual appearance of
the adjoining countryside and of the Conservation Area, which adjoins
the site’s southern and eastern boundaries. It would not intrude into the
179

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
countryside, but would consolidate existing development; there would
be associated new planting to the north.
4.11.156 It is argued that excluding an area of domestic curtilages from the
development boundary is illogical. Moreover SDDC has recently granted
planning permission for a large garage block behind The Elms, and it is
claimed that this would increase the “hemming in” of the tennis courts.
The objector says that it would also increase the separation of the listed
building from the tennis courts, so any development would neither affect
its setting, or that of the Conservation Area.
4.11.157 The existing development boundary of King’s Newton generally follows
the rear boundaries of frontage development on Main Street and Trent
Lane. The pattern of development to the north of Sleepy Lane and
behind the denser development on the Trent Lane frontage is more
dispersed, with large gardens and overgrown areas separating the
dwellings from this frontage. Moreover this area is separated from the
main part of King’s Newton by open land on the southern side of Sleepy
Lane. For these reasons I consider that the area to the north of Sleepy
Lane is distinguished from the buildings along Trent Lane, and that there
is no justification to extend the present development boundary. This
would be very likely to result in a harmful consolidation of the existing
dispersed housing.
4.11.158 The existing haulage use does not involve a building and I do not
consider that the improvements which would result from the use’s
removal would justify additional housing. In addition the permission for
an ancillary outbuilding is not a precedent for one or more new
dwellings.
4.11.159 The Elms is a listed building and within the Conservation Area but in
view of the intervening development I do not consider that any housing
on the former tennis court would harm its setting. However, the site has
recorded archaeological interests of potential importance, and this is an
additional reason why the development boundary should not be
extended.
Mickleover
Objections
G258/1385 Miller Homes East Midlands
G304/1159 Honormead Schools Ltd
J517/1191,1192, Mr R Walmsley
1194
J519/416 Mr J Potts
J920/1160 Honormead Schools Ltd and Mr R Walmsley
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.160 Objection G304/1159 relates to about 5ha which comprises the southwestern
end of a larger area, of some 16ha at Hospital Lane, the
subject of objection J920/1160. It is logical to consider them together.
4.11.161 The total area is bounded on the north by the new route of the A516, on
the north-east by the slip road from Mickleover down to the A516 and
180

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
then by the length of Hospital Lane where it joins this slip road. Hospital
Lane then turns to form the larger site’s south-eastern boundary. There
are open fields to the south-west. Most of the first site is occupied by a
large garden centre, associated with educational facilities which are also
within the site. The uses are served by an access road off Hospital Lane.
The remainder of the larger site is open fields, extending back towards
the slip road to the A516.
4.11.162 The objectors promoting the smaller site say that Policy H1 takes no
account of windfall brownfield sites related to Derby, which they believe
would be more sustainable than the allocation at Willington. They say
that the site is already partly used, and propose redevelopment for
mixed uses, including both new housing and the existing uses. The
scheme could include bus turning facilities, to improve public transport
links for the existing housing served by Hospital Lane.
4.11.163 SDDC accepts that the smaller site is previously developed land.
However, it is not on the edge of Derby but separated from the built-up
area by open fields and major roads. The objector has not challenged
the finding in CDA27a that there are no brownfield sites on the edge of
Derby that could be regarded as urban extensions. Moreover the
development of brownfield land further away is not necessarily
acceptable; PPG3 indicates that such land may perform poorly against
sustainability criteria. Here, services available in Mickleover are difficult
to access other than by private car because it is necessary to cross
major roads and a large roundabout. I do not consider that the site
scores well in terms of sustainability, compared with other land allocated
in the Plan, both brownfield and greenfield.
4.11.164 In addition, while it comprises the curtilage of the existing uses, parts of
it have the character of open land and others are used for outside
storage, parking and vehicle circulation; the areas covered by buildings
are relatively limited. PPG3 does not provide for development to fill the
entire curtilage in such circumstances.
4.11.165 Development of the smaller site would produce a finger of housing
running between the Pastures Hospital development and the A516. In
my opinion this would not be well-related to the settlement pattern of
the area. Moreover it appears that the objector intends to retain the
existing garden centre use, so that the proposed housing would occupy
an additional area. There would therefore be a larger area covered by
built development. This would be surrounded on 3 sides by open
countryside, and in my opinion would be an unacceptably prominent
intrusion into the countryside.
4.11.166 Bus turning facilities may be beneficial to improve public transport
services to the nearby former hospital site, but there is no indication that
a turning area is necessary or that it could not be provided elsewhere. I
do not consider that this matter justifies a housing allocation.
4.11.167 With regard to the larger site, the objectors seek an allocation for a
mixture of uses, including the existing uses, employment, and a park
and ride facility to serve the western side of Derby. A residential
allocation is stated to be necessary to fund the package. The remainder
of this site is greenfield. Although it is closer to Mickleover than the
smaller site, pedestrians and cyclists will still have to negotiate major
181

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
roads and a large roundabout to reach the various facilities. In my
opinion the site is not well-related to Mickleover.
4.11.168 I consider that the overbridge crossing the A516 marks a firm boundary
of the built-up area of Mickleover and that Hospital Lane separates the
Pastures Hospital development from the open countryside. Development
on the larger site would involve housing at an elevated level when
viewed from the A516, set well forward of these firm boundaries. It
would be seen as a prominent and harmful intrusion into the countryside
on the approach to Derby. It would also harmfully intrude into views
from the overbridge, Hospital Lane and the slip road; these are
currently of an extensive open area of which the site provides the
foreground.
4.11.169 The same objectors submitted objections promoting the allocation of
these sites under Policy EMP1 (G304/1155 and J517/1193). These are
addressed under that Policy and the same findings relate to the present
objections.
4.11.170 The proposed park and ride area would serve the western side of Derby.
However, this would not be as well located in terms of public transport
provision and accessibility as would the facility at Kingsway Hospital
within Derby City, which would serve the same catchment. I see no
need for a second facility, which could harm the viability of that already
proposed, and would not be as well located.
4.11.171 Objection J519/416 relates to land that lies to the west and south-west of
the above sites and forms part of Laurel Farm, Burnaston. This
omission site is a substantial area of land that broadly wraps around
three sides of the Pastures Hospital re-development. The objector
estimates that it could accommodate about 700 affordable dwellings,
plus the appropriate public transport and social infrastructure needed to
create a sustainable community. But, even though it adjoins the
Pastures Hospital re-development, this site is poorly related to the
general pattern of urban development at Mickleover. The land is open
farmland that generally slopes downwards away from the Hospital site.
As a result, any housing built upon it would be very intrusive and
materially harmful to the wider countryside; being readily visible from
the A516, from Dee Lane and Findern Lane in Burnaston, and from
Staker Lane to the south-east. For these reasons, I regard the land at
Laurel Farm as wholly inappropriate as a site for housing.
4.11.172 Objection J517/1194 relates to 3 sites at Newhouse Farm, to the southwest
of Mickleover. These are identified as sites B, C and D. The farm is
served the former route of the A516, which has now been truncated a
few metres to the south-west following the construction of the new
route. Site B comprises the older part of the farm complex, including the
farmhouse and a range of traditional buildings, covering some 0.5ha.
Adjoining to the south-west, site C contains more modern farm buildings
on about 0.2ha. Site D is an elongated triangle, some 1.3ha in extent,
on the opposite side of the access road and lies between it and the
present A516.
4.11.173 The objector says that Policy H1 does not allow for development of
brownfield windfall sites which are well-related to Derby. He argues that
site B falls within this category and that all 3 are close to services and
182

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
public transport in Mickleover. However, agricultural buildings are
excluded from PPG3’s definition of “previously developed land”, so all 3
sites are properly regarded as greenfield. Indeed, although site D is
close to new buildings near the Mickleover Court roundabout, sites B and
C are physically separated from the built-up area by open land. Even if
they were brownfield sites, they are not on the edge of Derby but
separated from the built-up area by major roads. They are not wellrelated
to it. The objector has not challenged the finding in CDA27a that
there are no brownfield sites on the edge of Derby that could be
regarded as urban extensions.
4.11.174 The Plan’s search sequence accepts a need to develop some greenfield
land in the Derby sub-area. However, in my opinion the nearby
overbridge firmly marks the beginning of the built-up area of Derby. The
existing farm group appears as a small range of buildings within the rural
landscape, and I consider that new housing, particularly on site D, would
harmfully intrude into the open countryside.
4.11.175 The same objector promotes the allocation of a site of 1ha, also at
Newhouse Farm. This is identified as “site E” and consists of grassland.
It is an island between the A516, at a lower level to the north, and the
slip road leading to it from Mickleover. Hospital Lane, serving a large
housing development, joins this slip road opposite the site’s frontage.
He says that the site is well-related to Mickleover and to recent housing
to the south of Hospital Lane. He suggests that a high density flatted
development would add to the area’s housing mix and be accessible to
services and public transport in Mickleover.
4.11.176 The site is physically close to the outskirts of Derby and to the large
housing development on the site of Pastures Hospital but it is a small
island between the A516 and the slip road. I consider that the proximity
of these major roads would cause unacceptable living conditions to
residents. In addition, all pedestrians would have to cross the slip road,
which I saw carries significant amounts of traffic. The levels of the
adjacent roads mean that the crossing point, and vehicular access, would
be very close to the junction with Hospital Lane, the only access to the
Pastures Hospital development. Traffic from the Mickleover direction
would approach this position downhill after negotiating an overbridge.
These factors indicate to me that the existing situation is hazardous.
SDDC indicates that the Highways Agency may not have any particular
concerns, but in my opinion any housing on this island site would
significantly increase the dangers.
4.11.177 For traffic approaching Derby on the A516, the overbridge marks the
beginning of the built-up area and to my mind the site is clearly in an
area of open countryside. I consider that any development, let alone the
high density flats envisaged in the objection, would appear as a harmful
intrusion into the countryside. This increases the unacceptability of the
site.
4.11.178 The site which objection J517/1191 relates also forms part of Newhouse
Farm and is identified as “site A”. It is a substantial area of farmland on
the west side of Mickleover, lying to the north of the A516 (Etwall Road)
and to the west of Ladybank Road.
4.11.179 Very little evidence has been put forward in relation to this site. I have
183

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
no details as to the agricultural quality of the land or whether there are
any major physical constraints to its development. There is easy access
to the A516 which in turn leads to the northbound A38 and to the A50.
The site is also fairly close to the district centre at Mickleover. But I
have no information as to the capacity of public transport, public utilities
or social infrastucture to absorb further development. Nor have I any
knowledge as to how the development of this land might be integrated
with existing adjoining urban areas. In short, I have no substantial basis
upon which to recommend that this site be allocated for housing
development. As such, I am not satisfied that it would be appropriate to
recommend that it be given further consideration.
4.11.180 Another objection promotes the allocation of some 70 acres (28ha) at
Staker Lane, on the edge of the built-up area of Derby. It is gently
undulating land and bounded on the north by the A516, on the east by
The Hollows and on the east and south by Staker Lane. Its northwestern
corner adjoins housing associated with the former Pastures
Hospital. About 6ha of the land shown is actually within the Derby City
boundary.
4.11.181 The objectors say that, as the site adjoins Derby’s built-up area, it is a
sustainable development opportunity which complies with PPG3’s search
sequence. They say that the site’s developable area is relatively small
and that it could accommodate between 100 and 300 dwellings. No
reason was given to justify the view on the size of the developable area,
and it appears to me that the numbers given are significantly below the
minimum density figures advised by PPG3.
4.11.182 The objectors supplied no evidence to support their view that the site is
sustainable. However, it appears to me that it is some distance from
regular public transport and from community and other facilities in
Derby. Moreover access is only possible by using circuitous, narrow and
unsuitable roads.
4.11.183 SDDC explained that no equivalent objection has been raised to the part
of the site within Derby; this area cannot be allocated by this Plan, and
it is clear that, if the objection were sustained, any housing within this
Plan area would not be well-related to nearby built-up areas in Derby.
Indeed, I doubt whether development would be feasible in isolation.
Moreover it would be readily visible from nearby roads and housing. I
consider that there would be a significant and harmful intrusion into the
attractive countryside between the built-up area of Derby and the
housing area on the site of the former Pastures Hospital.
4.11.184 Apart from this housing, the angle between the A38 and the A516 is
open and rural in character and that part within Derby City is a “green
wedge” in both the adopted and emerging development plans. This is
designed to provide a link between urban and rural areas and prevent
the coalescence of settlements, and is the type of open area protected
by the Structure Plan. I consider that development of the omission site
would erode the value of the wedge and increase its vulnerability. I note
Derby City Council’s objection on this basis.
4.11.185 Even though there is a need to meet the shortfall of housing land in the
Derby sub-area by releasing some greenfield land, I consider that this
site would be inappropriate for the above reasons. Moreover other
184

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
objections considered above indicate that there is pressure for
development in the vicinity; in my opinion to sustain this objection
would establish a precedent for this further development, which I have
already found to be unacceptable.
Scropton
Objections
B12/151 Foston and Scropton Parish Council
J878/1302 Mr W Roper
J878/32R Mr R Roper
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.186 The Parish Council promotes the allocation of land off Main Street. The
SDDC ‘s rebuttal identifies it as being a field between the railway and
Main Street, immediately west of Mill Lane and extending to 0.8ha.
4.11.187 This is a greenfield site outside Scropton’s built framework and, in view
of the limited facilities within the village, I consider that housing on it
would conflict with the Plan’s strategy. It would also intrude into an
open gap in the street scene; this is a further objection to development
on the site.
4.11.188 The objection to the DDLP under reference J878/1310 has been
withdrawn and the Policy in the RDDLP is supported subject to
modifications relating to rural brownfield sites. These are addressed in
section 4.1. The objector wishes an omission site objection, relating to
land to the south of Mill Lane, to be considered against the background
of his proposed modifications.
4.11.189 He seeks to allocate some 3.5ha to the south of Scropton, between the
railway line and the river Dove, as a small housing site where 5 or 6
houses may be permitted on part of it. Another part could be used as a
nature reserve and woodland, and part used as an addition to the
floodplain. A plan shows tree planting next to the railway and river,
additions to the floodplain next to the river and in the centre of the site,
and the indicative positions of 6 houses, most of them next to the river.
4.11.190 The land is roughly triangular in shape. It is a former railway
marshalling yard constructed during the second world war and is
extensively covered with foundations, etc. It is above flood level and was
extensively tipped with gypsum. Apart from 2 dwellings at the western
extremity, the site is unused; a third building has planning permission
for a residential conversion. These residential curtilages cover some 20%
of the site. Access is either from Mill Lane, across a gated level crossing,
or from a lane nearer the village centre, which leads across a manned
level crossing, then by a long access track to the site.
4.11.191 It is argued that the land cannot be reclaimed for agriculture or any
other productive use, and is brownfield. It is said to be close to Scropton
and Hatton and that the parish has more employment than population,
so that more housing is needed to reduce commuting into the area. The
objector argues that the number of houses proposed is not significant
and would not affect SDDC’s housing targets.
185

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
4.11.192 SDDC does not appear to have specifically addressed the objector’s point
that the land is brownfield, but it appears to me that it falls within this
classification. However, I agree that community facilities in Scropton are
limited and the objector accepts that public transport is “very poor”,
unlike Hatton about 1.7km away. To my mind, Scropton is properly
subject to Policy H1.A(III). In my opinion it is not the type of location
where development other than on small infill plots would be sustainable.
4.11.193 I accept that the large employment centres nearby are likely to generate
a level of net inward commuting. However, to locate new housing in a
settlement with limited community facilities would itself generate the
need to travel, even if all the residents were to work in the parish. I
note that an Inspector who determined an appeal in 2002 relating to the
conversion of one of the buildings considered that the site was so far
from the village that non-car travel would be unattractive. Moreover it
was not demonstrated that a small development on this site would
secure the viability of existing services in the village.
4.11.194 In this case the site is well-outside the village’s built framework. The
railway line is in my opinion a firm physical barrier, and the physical
separation is reinforced both by the presence of the unmanned level
crossing and the need to use a long and narrow access track to approach
the village over the other crossing. I consider that the site is properly
regarded as being in the countryside, and that any new development on
it, even the small number envisaged by the objector, would be
unacceptably intrusive when viewed from a nearby public footpath and
the railway. I do not agree that it would be well-screened, at least until
the proposed tree-planting is mature.
4.11.195 Policy ENV10 promotes the reclamation of derelict land, but only if
consistent with the policies of the Plan. I accept the benefits of
reclamation and landscaping, which could be secured as part of a
comprehensive development. However, the objector accepts that
housing on the site would be contrary to the aims of PPG13. I consider
that the unsustainable location of the housing would outweigh these
benefits.
Shardlow
Objections
J512/1006 Trustees of Lavinia Dickinson deceased
J856/652 Mr M Stanton
J917/1079 Mr S Frawley
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.196 Neither objection relating to land at Shardlow Nursery was
accompanied by a plan showing the site in question, but it seems to me
that they both relate to the same area of land and raise similar points. I
shall deal with them together. The absence of a plan prevents me from
resolving a discrepancy over the size of the site, between the 18 acres
(7.3ha) quoted by one objector and the 2.5ha to which SDDC’s rebuttals
refer.
4.11.197 Both objectors seek the residential development of the land, either by a
186

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
specific allocation or by including it in the village’s development
boundary. The site is on the southern side of London Road and adjoins
properties within Shardlow’s built framework. To the south are open
fields leading to the Trent and Mersey Canal, a Conservation Area. The
site is largely overgrown and, according to the objectors, the land’s state
has resulted in action by SDDC both to secure its visual improvement
and to end occupation by itinerants.
4.11.198 The objectors argue that the land was occupied some 50 years ago by a
large horticultural nursery and that debris from these buildings remains
on the site. As a result of its condition, it is said that only low grade
uses are possible, and that there has been no serious attempt to use at
least the majority of the site for agriculture. They consider that the site
should therefore be classified as “brownfield”. They believe that housing
development on part of the site could fund the reclamation of the
remainder and understand that the Parish Council is formulating
proposals for future uses.
4.11.199 Development in the vicinity consists of frontage housing along London
Road, with a telephone exchange behind the frontage development to
the west of the site. The objections involve housing in depth, and this
would be out of character with Shardlow’s built framework and intrude
into the countryside. It would not therefore be well-related to the
settlement. Moreover it would extend towards the canal, and erode its
rural setting, so harming the Conservation Area’s character and
appearance. Development in depth could in my opinion also harm the
setting of the Shardlow Conservation Area, on the opposite side of
London Road, although I agree that this setting could also be enhanced
by the improvement of the existing semi-derelict land.
4.11.200 SDDC provided details of an appeal decision from 1991 relating to the
parking of commercial vehicles, where the Inspector found that these
would be visually intrusive. The Inspector clearly had an inadequate
plan before him and based his finding on the possibility of the use taking
place anywhere on the site. In these circumstances I have given the
decision little weight in reaching my conclusion on the visual impact of
the proposed allocation.
4.11.201 As the site of former agricultural buildings, the land is excluded from the
definition of “previously developed land” in PPG3; it is therefore a
greenfield site. Even though there is a need to meet the shortfall of
housing land in the Derby sub-area by releasing some greenfield land, I
consider that this site would be inappropriate for the above reasons.
4.11.202 Shardlow Hall is a Grade 2* listed building, that lies outside the
settlement boundary of Shardlow and within the Green Belt. The objector
seeks the allocation of land to the south west of Shardlow Hall and within
its curtilage, referred to by the objector, as The Nursing Home Site for
housing development. The omission site is currently occupied by a
cluster of generally nondescript, commercial buildings and the objector
considers that the use of this previously-developed land for housing
would be in accordance with Government policy as set out in PPG3.
4.11.203 In my consideration of the objections to Policy ENV6, I have already
concluded that the Green Belt boundary in this area should not be
altered. The removal of the buildings currently on the omission site
187

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
Sinfin
would benefit both the openness of the Green Belt and the setting of
Shardlow Hall. But, the erection of houses in their place is not
necessarily an appropriate alternative. It would be contrary to Policy
ENV6 and may also harm the setting of the listed building. The Council
acknowledges that some form of redevelopment of the omission site may
well be desirable to fund the long-term retention of the Hall. But there is
insufficient evidence before me to demonstrate that housing is the only
form of enabling development in such circumstances. Nor is there
sufficient evidence to show that such a scheme would be in accordance
with Policy ENV19B. Accordingly, I consider that none of the land at
Shardlow Hall should be allocated for housing development.
Objection
G182/1324 Hallam Land Management Ltd
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.204 The objection concerns land south of Wragley Way. The objector seeks
a residential allocation for an area of open land (about 38 hectares) lying
to the east of Arleston Lane, and extending from Wragley Way south to
the A50. The eastern boundary of the omission site is defined partly by
Deep Dale Lane and partly by adjoining field boundaries. A northern
portion of the site (about 10 hectares) is within the confines of Derby
City and hence outside the administrative area of South Derbyshire
District Council. In considering this objection I have had detailed regard
only to the land within South Derbyshire District. The land is also the
eastern extremity of a substantial omission site which extended as far as
the A38 at Findern. I consider objection G258/1386, which promotes it,
within the section relating to omission sites at Findern.
4.11.205 The land south of Wragley Way is a greenfield site. In view of my
recommendation in relation to the H5 site in Willington and in the
absence, within the Derby Sub-Area, of other previously-developed
urban land sufficient to accommodate the number of new dwellings
required during the Plan period, it is appropriate to consider housing
development on a site such as this that could be described as an urban
extension.
4.11.206 Traffic generated by the development would in most instances use the
Stenson Road/Sinfin Lane corridor to access Derby city. As a result of
both congestion within Derby and the existence of connections to the
regional road network via lanes to the south of the A50, it is likely that a
proportion of the traffic generated by the development would travel
southwards in order to leave the immediate area. My concerns in
respect of the local road network serving the land south of Wragley Way
are similar to the concerns I express below in relation to the allocation of
Stenson Meadows.
4.11.207 With regard to public transport, I note that Wragley Way is currently
served by 2 bus services, providing a generally frequent service into
Derby. Table 3.5 of the Derby Joint Local Transport Plan describes bus
services within the Stenson Road/Sinfin Lane corridor as having ‘slow
journey speeds’, and whether any prospective developer would be willing
188

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
to carry out alterations at certain junctions along Stenson Road so as to
ease congestion, would be a matter for negotiation. However, on the
basis of existing services in the area, I consider that it should be possible
to provide an adequate bus service from this omission site to appropriate
areas of the city.
4.11.208 Sinfin district centre, with its large Asda superstore, is fairly close to the
site; so too are major employment areas in Derby. There is therefore
some potential for trips that otherwise might have been made by car to
be made either on foot or bicycle. There are no apparent problems in
providing the requisite service infrastructure for a development of the
scale proposed.
4.11.209 With regard to environmental considerations, part of the site lies within
the Sinfin Moor Regionally Important Geological Site (RIGS) and is
protected accordingly by policy ENV1. However, there is no dispute that
the main body of sediments, that make the RIGS important, lie beyond
the omission site. As such this designation would not appear to be a
barrier to the development of the omission site. Part of the site supports
unimproved/semi-improved grassland, the importance of which as a
habitat is recognised in Policy ENV2. A report prepared for the Council by
Derbyshire Wildlife Trust indicates those aspects that need to be
considered in order to assess the site’s wildlife importance; and this
matter requires further work.
4.11.210 Turning to broader landscape considerations, it seems to me that the
physical relationship of this land to the broad pattern of development in
the immediate area is a significant cause for concern. At present,
Wragley Way provides a clear physical boundary between the urban area
of Derby and the countryside to the south. The omission site is generally
flat, open countryside; no more, nor less, visually attractive than much
of the rural area on the south side of Derby. However, development on
the land would be very conspicuous from Wragley Way, Arleston Lane
and Deep Dale Lane. To my mind such development would appear as a
substantial visual intrusion into the open countryside. It would
undermine the countryside policy of Derby City Council in respect of the
northern portion of the site (about 10 ha) that is within the confines of
Derby City. Furthermore, to allocate this land for housing, would make it
very difficult to resist similar subsequent schemes on land to the west
(between Arleston Lane and Stenson Road) and possibly also further to
the east of Deep Dale Lane. Each of these considerations lead me to the
view that this omission site should not be allocated for housing
development.
4.11.211 The objector requested that this site be developed in preference to the
land at Boulton Moor, allocated under Policy H7. For the reasons set out
in my consideration of the objections to Policy H7, I find the Boulton
Moor land suitable for housing development. In the light of the factors
set out above, I see no reason to conclude that the land south of
Wragley Way represents a site better suited to housing development
than the Boulton Moor land.
Stenson Fields/Stenson Meadows
Objections
189

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
G21/1002 David Wilson Homes (North Midlands)
G258/1386 Miller Homes East Midlands
J288/1198 Trustees of J W Robinson Settlement
G10/1531 Redrow Homes (Midlands) Ltd.
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.212 These objections all seek to allocate land at and in the vicinity of Stenson
Fields Farm for housing. Objection J288/1198 is not supported by a plan
but contains general descriptions of boundaries. The land involved in it
includes the first site, whereas objection G258/1386 encompasses the
land comprised in the 3 other objection sites, together with a large
amount of other land that also includes the omission sites at Highfields
Farm, Littleover. It extends from the A38 to the area south of Wragley
Way. I consider this largest site in the section on Findern.
4.11.213 The smallest site is a triangular area of some 16ha which surrounds, but
excludes, the farmhouse and adjacent commercial buildings at Stenson
Fields Farm. It is on the western side of Stenson Road, between it and
the Derby to Birmingham railway line. Its south-western boundary
appears to follow an incomplete hedge, and begins at a point opposite
Wragley Way. The Stenson Fields estate, and land allocated for housing
under Policy H8, are on the opposite side of the road.
4.11.214 The objectors say that the site offers the opportunity of creating a
planned urban extension with a range of employment, community,
leisure, retail and transport facilities, but give no firm details. They also
point out that such facilities already exist nearby and that the vicinity’s
locational advantages are recognised by major allocations in both this
Plan and the City of Derby Local Plan. They argue that development on
the site would accord with PPG3, RPG8 and the Structure Plan.
4.11.215 Stenson Meadows is the name given by objectors Redrow Homes to
land adjoining the southern edge of the built-up area of Derby, west of
Stenson Lane. It is bounded to the south by the railway, to the east and
north by existing housing, and to the west by farmland and a sizeable
wood at Hell Meadow Wood. The objector indicates that the site could
readily accommodate some 950 dwellings, plus a primary school and a
secondary school if necessary.
4.11.216 Objection J288/1198 relates to a larger area to the west of Stenson
Road, bounded on the north by the Derby City boundary and the
housing development which adjoins it, and on the south by the A50 road.
No indication was given of the exact line of the land’s western boundary,
but on the basis of the information supplied, the site covers well over
100ha. It includes both of the above sites.
4.11.217 The objectors say that the Structure Plan envisages provision of housing
land on the periphery of Derby and, as there are limited opportunities for
development on brownfield land, some greenfield will have to be
allocated. They say that the existing allocation at Stenson Fields would
be inadequate to meet the housing requirements.
4.11.218 The 3 sites raise broadly similar issues, and it is appropriate to consider
them together.
4.11.219 The Plan recognises that some greenfield land will need to be allocated to
meet the Structure Plan’s housing land requirements in the Derby sub-
190

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
area. There would be a shortfall in housing land supply in the sub-area if
SDDC accept my recommendation to delete the allocation at Willington.
However, the largest of the 3 sites would be able to accommodate far
more housing than would be required to meet the shortfall. This alone
makes it inappropriate as an allocation.
4.11.220 With regard to landscape impact, the A50 to the south of the omission
sites runs through an area of open countryside and is essentially a rural
road. Development to the west of Stenson Road, in Derby City, is some
1.5km north of the A50, but to the east housing on the northern side of
Wragley Way approaches to about 300m. The landscape is flat, and
particularly open to view from the bridge where Stenson Road crosses
over the A50, as well as from lengths of the A50 and the railway line.
Substantial development, which would close the gap between the A50
and the City boundary, would, in my opinion significantly, impinge on
this landscape and harmfully erode the rural character of the A50. For
this additional reason I cannot support the allocation of the largest site.
I shall now confine my consideration to the sites at Stenson Fields Farm
and Stenson Meadows.
4.11.221 The Stenson Fields Farm site would retain an existing buffer to the A50,
continuing that to the south of Wragley Way. Housing would still intrude
into the open landscape, although to a much lesser extent than would
the largest site. Stenson Meadows is set well back from the A50, and
development there will have little effect on the road’s rural setting.
Indeed, the Council has not identified any major harm to the local
landscape that would be likely to arise from the development of either
site and I am not aware of any. I also note that Stenson Meadows is
predominantly grade 3B agricultural land and hence not of the highest
quality.
4.11.222 One cause for concern is the likely effect of housing there upon Hell
Meadow Wood, which lies within the site. It is not only a prominent
feature in the landscape, but also a SINC, and safeguarded accordingly
under Policy ENV1. I address an objection seeking the deletion of the
designation (J288/1196) under Policy ENV1, and do not support it.
4.11.223 Whilst it is intended that the wood be retained as part of any
development at Stenson Meadows, it is questionable whether its likely
role as part of the recreational open space within the development is
compatible with any requirement to safeguard those features that give it
natural history importance. However, as I see it, this is a matter that
could be addressed as part of any development guidelines that are
formulated for the area. I do not regard it as an insurmountable
obstacle insofar as the development of the objection site as a whole is
concerned. In my view, the landscape impact of either site would be
acceptable subject to significant landscaping where they adjoin the open
countryside.
4.11.224 In relation to services, the Sinfin district centre is a short distance inside
the city boundary. It has a wide range of retail and community facilities,
including an Asda superstore. It is some 500m from Stenson Fields
Farm. Moreover there is a local centre on Pilgrims Way, running parallel
to Stenson Road, which is much closer. It has a church, public house
and a small parade of shops, able to provide day-to-day needs. The
nearest school is about 400m away. The large employment centre at
191

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
Pear Tree is about 1km away.
4.11.225 Because of the proximity of existing facilities to both sites, there is some
potential for trips that otherwise might have been made by car to be
made either on foot or bicycle. Moreover, the Stenson Fields area is well
served by bus routes, and I understand that the bus service is the most
frequent in South Derbyshire. Two regular routes to the district centre
and on into Derby run along Stenson Fields Farm’s frontage to Stenson
Road. One of them goes on to pass along Sinfin Lane, and provides an
alternative to the congested section of Stenson Road, further north.
Table 3.5 of the Derby Joint Local Transport Plan describes bus services
within the Stenson Road/Sinfin Lane corridor as having “slow journey
speeds”, but Redrow Homes indicated a possible willingness to carry out
alterations at certain junctions along Stenson Road so as to ease
congestion. It should therefore be possible to provide an adequate bus
service from Stenson Meadows to appropriate areas of the city.
4.11.226 Some employment use is proposed at Stenson Fields Farm. This could
reduce the need to travel, but there is already an over-supply of
employment land in the Derby sub-area, so provision on this site is not
justified in strategic terms. Community and retail facilities are also
proposed but, in view of the proximity of Sinfin, there appears to be no
shortage.
4.11.227 I consider that in terms of access to facilities and to public transport,
Stenson Fields Farm and Stenson Meadows are both particularly
sustainable. I take David Wilson Homes’ point that there are nearby
allocations both in this Plan and in the City of Derby Local Plan. These
must recognise the sustainability of the area along Stenson Road.
4.11.228 Moreover, land for new primary and secondary schools could be made
available as part of at least the larger schemes, and such facilities would
assist in building a sense of community within the development. There
are no apparent problems in providing the requisite service infrastructure
for developments of the scale proposed.
4.11.229 I recognise that in terms of transportation, neither site is ideal. Stenson
Road, to their south, crosses over the A50 and then takes on the
character of a country lane. Beyond Stenson the road connects with
other lanes that lead to the A5132, which in turn connects directly to the
A38 and indirectly to the A50. As a result of congestion within Derby
and in view of these alternative connections to the regional road
network, it is likely that a proportion of the traffic generated by Stenson
Meadows would travel in a southerly direction on leaving the sites. Yet
the circuitous highway network to the south is not ideal to accommodate
the amount of traffic likely to be generated by development of the scale
proposed.
4.11.230 To the north, the sites are connected to the Derby Outer Ring Road and
the city centre beyond by Stenson Road. I understand that statistically
this is the most lightly trafficked radial route into the city. However, it is
not part of the Derby area’s primary route network, and table 3.5 of the
Derby Joint Local Transport Plan describes routes between the Outer
Ring Road and the city, in the Stenson Road/Sinfin Lane corridor, as
“unsuitable for large volumes of traffic”.
4.11.231 Difficulties associated with the local highway network are exacerbated by
192

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
the proximity of future access points into Stenson Meadows to the road
bridge over the Derby to Birmingham railway. Vehicular use of the
bridge is already subject to traffic-light control, and either proposed
development would both increase traffic volumes at this point and there
may be a need to introduce additional traffic lights to control traffic flows
using a proposed site access directly to the north of the bridge. The
development of the omission sites can therefore be expected to add to
congestion on Stenson Road, and I share the concerns expressed at the
Inquiry on behalf of the Council, that the relationship of Stenson
Meadows to the highway network is poor. Nevertheless, I do not consider
highway concerns in themselves to be a sufficient weighty reason for
rejecting either site.
4.11.232 While development of even Stenson Fields Farm could increase
congestion further north on Stenson Road, the amount of new housing
which could be accommodated on this site is unlikely to have a material
impact on existing problems. Moreover, Sinfin Lane provides an
alternative route from it into the city centre, both by bus and car.
4.11.233 In view of my recommendation regarding the housing allocation at
Willington (Policy H5) and in the absence, within the Derby sub–area, of
other previously-developed urban land sufficient to accommodate the
number of new dwellings required during the Plan period, it is
appropriate to consider housing development on greenfield urban
extensions.
4.11.234 Having regard to each of the above factors, although both are greenfield
sites, in overall terms, I consider that the development of either for
housing would represent a more sustainable form of development for the
area than that proposed under Policy H5 for Willington. Stenson
Meadows is of a size sufficient to accommodate development
commensurate with the scale of that allocation, and Stenson Fields Farm
would be able to make a significant contribution to any shortfall. I
consider that either are sites which would merit consideration as a
replacement for the allocation at Willington.
Sutton-on-the-Hill
Objection
J921/1162 Mr F C Hall
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.235 The objector proposes a development boundary, to include an elevated
site of 0.2ha on the eastern side of Dish Lane. He says that this would
be in the village framework and cause no environmental damage.
However, it is a greenfield site, so even if there were a development
boundary, its development would not accord with Policy H1. In any
event, I consider that it performs the valuable function of visually
separating the village from an extensive farm complex. Any housing on
this prominent site would be outside the village’s built framework and
would harmfully intrude into the open countryside.
4.11.236 In section 4.2 I have addressed the aspect of the objection seeking to
amend Policy H1’s criteria to provide for housing well-related to
193

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
settlements and for local employees.
Ticknall
Objection
J922/1172 Dr H W Joynes
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.237 Ticknall has been identified as a sustainable settlement under Policy H1.
The objection promotes the extension of the development boundary to
include an allocation of about 0.65ha on the western side of Ashby Road.
It is argued that the land has no beneficial use for agriculture but could
accommodate “a limited number of well-designed dwellings in a
landscaped setting”. The objection also seeks an amendment to the
wording of Policy H1 to allow development within, or well-related to, the
identified sustainable settlements. I consider this in section 4.2.
4.11.238 The site is about 40m deep and has a frontage of some 170m long.
There is a small brick barn just within its northern boundary. Ticknall’s
development boundary extends southwards from the main part of the
village on Burton Road, to include two ribbons of development on either
side of High Street. It stops about 200m from the site’s northern
boundary, at which point development becomes more sporadic and
separated by open gaps. To my mind this is a logical position for the
development boundary.
4.11.239 The objection site is greenfield land well outside any built-up area, and so
is low on the Plan’s search sequence. Moreover it is within the Ticknall
Conservation Area, which extends for nearly 1km south from the
development boundary. I consider that a particular feature of this part
of the Conservation Area is the number of open gaps between scattered
buildings. Any development on the site would in my view erode both
Ticknall’s rural setting and the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area. This would be contrary to advice in PPG15 and to the
Structure Plan.
4.11.240 I share SDDC’s concern that a precedent would be set, as it would be
difficult for SDDC to resist housing in gaps further north, which would be
included in the development boundary if the objection were sustained.
This would compound the harm which I have identified.
4.11.241 I note that, when dismissing an appeal relating to the residential
conversion of the barn in 2000, an Inspector endorsed the exclusion of
the site from the development boundary. He also found that the
conversion works and the formation of an access and garden would harm
the Conservation Area. I have no reason to overturn this finding or to
consider that a number of new houses on the site would be any more
acceptable.
194

Weston-on-Trent
Objection
South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
J508/568 Executors of H E Bird
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.242 An objection promotes the allocation of land north of Main Street for
development and a new recreation ground. No plan was provided but it
appears to me that the site is an area of greenfield land, and that
development on it would harmfully intrude into the countryside. New
housing on this scale would be inappropriate in a village without a basic
level of facilities. A new recreation ground may be beneficial to the
village but I do not consider that its provision need be dependent on, or
justify, unacceptable housing development.
Willington
Objections
G182/1306 Hallam Land Management Limited
H4/1362 Hanson Quarry Products (Europe) Ltd
J794/484 Alan Jones
J916/1049 Mr R E Woodisse
LJ927/1454 County Councillor Bob James
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.243 Land east of Etwall Road is on the northern fringe of Willington. It
extends to some 3.5ha. The site is bounded by a railway line to the north
and this, together with Etwall Road to the west, and the boundaries of
the rear gardens of the dwellings that front onto Findern Lane to the
south-east, all give a degree of containment and definition to the land.
Nevertheless, as I perceived it the site does not lie within what I regard
as the wider physical confines of Willington. The railway line is a strong
physical feature, but it leads to a junction with the Derby to Birmingham
railway line to the north-east of Willington and my impression was that it
is wholly unrelated to the physical form of the village. Accordingly
therefore, while the site is not far from Willington’s facilities and its
railway station, I am not satisfied that development of the land for
housing the site would form a logical and natural extension to the
existing village settlement form as the objector contends.
4.11.244 I accept that the properties in Derwent Court and the houses fronting
onto Findern Lane mean that there is already an appreciable pocket of
development to the north of the Trent and Mersey Canal which,
according to the Council forms a strong boundary. Nevertheless, I agree
with the Council’s view that travelling northwards from the main body of
the village and crossing over the canal creates a strong perception of
entering the countryside. As well as the fields on the west side of the
road, the predominantly open nature of the cemetery and allotment
gardens to the north of Derwent Court also contribute to this impression.
4.11.245 I acknowledge that Willington is identified as a Serviced Village and has
a reasonable range of facilities. In addition, its transport links fall within
195

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
the Council’s definition of ‘good’ 6 in the Housing Topic Paper.
Nevertheless, the site occupies a very prominent position alongside one
of the main routes in and out of Willington. My opinion is that
development here would appear as a significant and intrusive incursion
into the countryside, poorly related to the local pattern of settlement and
the form of the village as a whole.
4.11.246 Hanson Quarry Products (Europe) Ltd’s objection seeks the allocation of a
former sand and gravel extraction site accessed off Repton Road and
immediately west of the Saxon Grove/Tailby Drive estate, and to
the south of the Derby to Birmingham railway, for housing. The plan
accompanying the objection appears not to scale, and neither the
objector nor SDDC have given details of the area of the site, but it seems
to me to extend to about 6ha.
4.11.247 The objectors confirm that the land has been substantially restored to
low grade agriculture but argue that large areas of hardstanding and
derelict buildings remain, and that these constitute previously developed
land. They say that Willington is agreed to be a sustainable settlement
and that their land is well-suited for new housing, being within an easy
walk of the railway station and public transport, easily accessible by
road, close to services and employment and the village centre. They
also say that the site provides an opportunity to enhance local
recreational facilities.
4.11.248 PPG3 says that where the remains of any activity have blended into the
landscape in the process of time to the extent that it can reasonably
considered as part of the natural surroundings, then the land would not
be classified as “previously developed land”. The majority of this site
seems to me to accord with this description, as it has the appearance of
a field and is used for grazing. In my opinion it is properly regarded as
being “greenfield”. I do not consider that those small areas of
hardstanding or derelict buildings which are within the objection site
materially alter the situation.
4.11.249 Moreover, they appear to be in that part of it furthest away from the
edge of Willington, which is firmly delineated by both the row of mature
trees to the west of the existing estate and the adjacent public footpath.
Development on the site would protrude into the countryside some 150m
beyond this clear and obvious limit, up to an undefined boundary; in my
view this impact would be unacceptable.
4.11.250 The site is close to the village centre and its facilities, although the
attractiveness of walking routes are reduced by the complex and busy
junction in the centre and the absence of a footway on the western side
of Repton Road under the railway bridge. There is clearly not enough
appropriately-located brownfield land in the Derby sub-area to meet the
Structure Plan’s housing requirements and the Plan recognises a need to
allocate some greenfield land. Despite this need I consider that it would
be inappropriate to allocate this intrusive site, poorly-related to the
village’s built form.
4.11.251 Mr R E Woodisse’s objection seeks a residential allocation at Repton
Road, and also the exclusion of the site from an area of important open
6 CDA27 annex 7
196

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
space subject to Policy ENV8. I address this aspect of the objection in
section 2.9.
4.11.252 The site is some 0.25ha on the southern outskirts of Willington,
immediately south of a new estate at Sycamore Court and between
Repton Road and Bargate Lane. It is the northern half of a paddock area
associated with Sycamore Farm; the southern part is within the river
Trent’s floodplain. The paddock, together with land to the south and
east, next to the river, is identified on the Proposals Map as an
“important open space” subject to Policy ENV8, although also within
Willington’s development boundary.
4.11.253 The objector argues that the site can be laid out with dwellings whose
style would complement those nearby. This would be in contrast to
proposals for 5 houses dismissed on appeal in 1998, where the Inspector
found that the massing of an elevated development would be visually
harmful when seen across the paddock. The objector also says that
buildings to the east of Bargate Lane extend southwards to
approximately the line of the objection site, so that the proposed
development would produce a more realistic boundary. He says that
housing would be within the settlement boundary and close to both
public transport and the village centre. He argues that development
would accord with the Structure Plan.
4.11.254 The whole of the paddock is within the development boundary, as is
other nearby open land subject to Policy ENV8. I find this surprising
given the Policy context, in that the boundary delineates the area within
which housing on brownfield land would accord with Policy H1.A(II). In
any event, as the site is greenfield, inclusion within the boundary does
not support arguments for housing on it. This is despite proximity to
public transport and the village services. Moreover PPG3 says that there
should be no account of greenfield windfalls.
4.11.255 In 1998 the Inspector found that the paddock contributed to the setting
of the properties to the east of Bargate Lane, as well as of the church.
Some of these properties are listed. He found that it was part of an
attractive open area which made a valuable contribution to the character
of this part of the village. I have no reason to disagree, and I am not
convinced that a different layout or design of buildings would outweigh
the loss of the open area. I therefore consider that, even if a greenfield
windfall could be considered acceptable in principle under the Plan’s
strategy, housing resulting in the loss of this important open space would
harm the character of this part of the village.
4.11.256 The objector would dedicate the rest of the paddock for public use.
While this would be beneficial, I do not consider that it would justify the
loss of the northern part and the consequent harm to the village’s
character.
4.11.257 In the RDDLP the settlement boundary for Willington has been amended
in between the rear of the properties on Twyford Road and the Trent
and Mersey Canal. To my mind, this addresses the objections made by
Alan Jones and County Councillor Bob James satisfactorily. I see no need
for any further modification to the boundary here.
197

Swadlincote Sub-Area
South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
4.11.258 My consideration of each of the omission sites advanced in the
Swadlincote sub-area is against the background of there being enough
housing land either with planning permission or allocated on brownfield
land. There is therefore no strategic need for allocations on greenfield
land. I shall not repeat this point in detail in my consideration of
individual sites, but will address their particular characteristics.
Castle Gresley
Objections
G217/1388, Roy Williams and Company
1389, 1390,
1391, 1392
G270/1014 St Modwen Developments Ltd
J501/610 E H Kinston and Son
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.259 Objection G217/1388 relates to a site of about 2ha at Knob Fields, and
J501/610 to most of it. Both seek either allocation for housing or
inclusion in a development boundary. The objectors argue that the land
is surrounded by development and is opposite the housing site allocated
under Policy H4. It is also said to be subject to trespass and vandalism,
which causes a danger that cattle could stray on to the main road.
4.11.260 The land is to the south of Knob Fields, a short and narrow cul-de-sac off
Burton Road. It is on the opposite side of the A444 to the major
development at Castle Gresley and the housing site allocated under
Policy H4; in my view it is very different in character from this urbanised
area. The land is grassland which slopes steeply up towards the mound
at Castle Knob. This is a scheduled ancient monument which forms the
western part of the site of objection G217/1388, but is excluded from
that of J501/610. The site is particularly prominent when viewed from
Burton Road across the frontage of a large modern retail warehouse to
the east. A public footpath runs from Knob Fields, inside the site’s
north-western boundary, then to the north of Castle Knob, before joining
Mount Road.
4.11.261 Housing on the objection site would breach the Plan’s strategy as it is
greenfield land in a sub-area where no greenfield release is needed.
Moreover in view of the site’s steepness and prominence, any
development here would appear particularly obtrusive in the countryside
on the edge of Castle Gresley. Nearby the development boundary
logically follows the railway line, but in my opinion this site’s physical
characteristics justify its exclusion from the boundary.
4.11.262 The larger objection site includes Castle Knob, and any development on
this part could only harm the ancient monument, contrary to national
guidance in PPG16. This says that the importance of preserving an
ancient monument and its setting is a material planning consideration,
and both sites would involve development which in my opinion would
harm the monument’s setting. This increases the unacceptability of any
development on either of the sites. English Heritage’s concern about
198

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
possible damage to the monument from grazing does not justify the
infinitely greater damage which would be caused by housing on the
monument or in its immediate setting.
4.11.263 I sympathise with the objectors over problems of trespass and damage
to fencing, but this does not in my opinion mean either that the land
should be allocated for housing or that the settlement boundary should
be extended.
4.11.264 In relation to land at Home Farm Court, the objections made by Roy
Wiiliams and Company purport to be directed at Policies H1 and H2. But,
in essence, they seek the residential allocation, or the inclusion in a
development boundary, of land at the end of Home Farm Court, a
modern cul-de-sac off the southern side of Burton Road. The site
consists of some 0.4ha of overgrown relatively flat land. Development at
Mount Road, to the south-east, includes some new housing and is at a
higher level. The site’s south-western boundary adjoins a large and
prominent electricity installation.
4.11.265 It is argued that the land is considered as brownfield under Policy H2,
being a former farmyard and silage pit. It is said to be no longer useful
as agricultural land, and to harm local residents’ amenity, being weed
infested and subject to trespass and vandalism. As a result, cattle can
stray on to the A444.
4.11.266 A former farmyard does not accord with the definition of “previously
developed land” in PPG3, so the objection site is properly classified as
“greenfield”. Even though the site is surrounded by development on 3
sides and may otherwise be regarded as a logical addition to the built-up
area, its greenfield status within a sub-area where the Structure Plan’s
housing requirements can be met means that a housing allocation would
conflict with the Plan’s strategy.
4.11.267 While the land may have been allowed to become overgrown, I do not
consider that this justifies a housing development on it. The objectors
raised similar points to those they advanced in relation to land at Knob
Fields and my findings on them relate equally to this site.
4.11.268 Objections to the omission of land at Archers Barn Farm relate to 2
adjacent sites and I shall consider them together. The first seeks the
allocation of 2.55ha for housing; this site is a rectangular area behind a
ribbon of housing on the southern side of Mount Pleasant Road and
slopes down from this ribbon towards an area of trees to the south-west.
The site is to the south-east of a recently-built estate which extends Oak
Close. The estate layout does not seem to accord with the objection plan
as it appears that there is provision for vehicular access from the estate
into the objection site.
4.11.269 The second site extends to 14ha and is on the lower parts of the hillside
to the south-west of the first, and to the south of both the new estate
and of housing along Cedar Road. To the south the objection site
extends almost as far as a sporadic group of dwellings including
Waterfallows Farm. The related objection also relates to the “search
sequence” for new development. I deal with this last in section 4.2.
4.11.270 Either would represent a significant greenfield site within the
Swadlincote sub-area. The objections would therefore create a
199

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
significant conflict with the Plan’s strategy.
4.11.271 I do not consider that the presence of the adjacent housing estate forms
a precedent for the release of any of this land, as SDDC has shown that
planning permission was granted in 1999. This was in the context of the
previous Local Plan and before the publication of the current PPG3 and
its emphasis on developing brownfield land in preference to greenfield.
Moreover SDDC was influenced in its decision by the presence of a farm
complex, although PPG3 does not classify such areas as “brownfield”.
4.11.272 Both sites are outside the built-up area of Castle Gresley. Development
on them could be seen from and between houses along Mount Pleasant
Road, but their hillside location makes them particularly prominent when
viewed from the south and west, including from Linton Heath and the
public footpaths over the intervening fields. Development there would
be a prominent intrusion into the countryside, which to my mind is a
further significant objection to any allocation.
4.11.273 An objection seeks to extend the development boundary southeastwards
on both sides of Mount Pleasant Road, from its existing
position up to the A444. On the southern side, the additional area would
run for some 600m, most of which is frontage housing, and also include
development in depth on Field Lane. On the northern side, a ribbon of
housing extends some 350m from the existing development boundary.
The objectors seek to include both ribbons in the new boundary,
together with approximately 0.5ha on the north-eastern side, next to the
junction with the A444. An open field between it and the end of the
ribbon would be excluded.
4.11.274 It is argued that the extensive ribbon development is physically and
functionally part of Castle Gresley’s built-up area, and has good access
to its services and facilities. The objectors say that the area does not
have the characteristics of the open countryside, but it is subject to
policies relating to it.
4.11.275 I consider that in terms of visual appearance the ribbons of development
which extend out from Castle Gresley along Mount Pleasant Road are
within the countryside rather than the urban area. In my opinion they
should not be within the development boundary, where housing on
brownfield land would in principle be permitted but would have the effect
of consolidating the ribbon. In any event the omission site is greenfield
land, and including it within the boundary would not facilitate its
development under Policy H1.
4.11.276 The site itself is separated from the ribbon of housing to the north-west
by an open gap, and development on it would be readily visible from the
A444 and intrusive in the countryside. It could also lead to the loss of
protected trees, and this would further harm the character and
appearance of the vicinity. One dwelling has recently been built next to
the southern end of the current site and I note that further development
has been consistently resisted on grounds of visual amenity. I see no
reason to provide for any further harmful development.
Church Gresley
Objections
200

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
H18/1216 Dyson Industries Ltd
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.277 The objectors seek the allocation of some 13ha of land behind frontage
development on the south-eastern side of Church Street. It adjoins a
recent housing estate on the north-east, and open areas on the other 2
boundaries; the area to the south-west consists of restored workings.
The site slopes down from north-west to south-east and is currently used
for grazing.
4.11.278 The objectors refer to the acceptance of SDDC and the previous Local
Plan Inspector that the site has long-term development potential, and
say that the current Plan has a shortfall of housing provision in the
Swadlincote sub-area of some 366 dwellings. However, in the Housing
Topic Paper (CD/A27), SDDC has shown that there is no shortfall of
housing land in this sub-area, and so no justification to release land on
this ground.
4.11.279 In my opinion the site is clearly greenfield land, and there is no
requirement to release any such land within the Swadlincote sub-area.
The objectors say that the land is well-related to existing and developing
areas but to my mind its location on a slope running down from the
existing built-up area means that it is not well-related to the existing
settlement pattern. Moreover development on it would be obtrusive
when seen from the south and east and from nearby public footpaths,
including those passing through the site. In view of the environmental
improvements in the general area associated with the National Forest,
such an intrusion would be particularly unacceptable.
Coton-in-the-Elms
Objections
J484/1330, 82R Mr D Coaster
J504/211 Mr J D Deakin and Sons
J538/547 David Pruden and Patricia Bullen
J816/535 Michael & Susan Gibson
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.280 Objectors propose the allocation of 2 sites totalling some 1.6ha at
Church Farm, on the north-western edge of the village. The larger,
1.4ha, includes a range of traditional and modern farm buildings on the
southern side of Church Street. The other is a small irregular parcel
behind housing at Church Croft.
4.11.281 The objectors milk about 70 cows and say that the need for them to
cross the highway up to 4 times a day reduces road safety. Allocation
would remove the farm’s environmental impact while maintaining village
viability and sustaining services. Development would not adversely
affect the village’s character and appearance. The smaller site’s size and
shape make it unusable for modern agricultural purposes.
4.11.282 As described in section 4.3, the lack of a full range of facilities makes it
appropriate to identify Coton as being subject to Policy H1.A(III).
201

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
Significant new housing development is not therefore justified in terms of
the Plan’s strategy. To the south of the larger site is a mobile home park
which extends well back from Church Street, beyond the line of the
existing farm buildings, and there is a small estate to the south of the
smaller. However, both objection sites are greenfield land which would
extend beyond the village’s built-up area and into the countryside.
4.11.283 While recognising the highway safety benefits of removing the need for
cattle to cross the road, I do not consider that this justifies development
of the sites. Moreover, if the farm complex were to be relocated if its
existing site were redeveloped, these movements could resume. I also
note that SDDC may be prepared to consider some form of conversion of
existing buildings, as complying with other policies of the Plan.
4.11.284 Some objectors promote the inclusion of 2 small paddocks, some 0.2ha
in area, in the development boundary. They are to the west of the
conversion scheme at Barns Court, behind frontage development on
Church Street. They seek to maximise their land holding, and wish to
build 2 houses of aesthetically pleasing appearance. They say that this
would be a more natural boundary, as farmland commences beyond it.
They cite 2 nearby developments outside the (adopted) development
boundary. These are the large Greenacre mobile home park, 40m to the
north of the objection site and separated from it by a lane and a
recreation ground, and a factory unit about 50m to the south. The
objectors say that their land would infill between these 2 developments.
4.11.285 The policies are also claimed to be a restrictive interpretation of
government Policy, and the objectors challenge the premise that new
housing in the village is deemed unnecessary because brownfield sites
have been identified elsewhere, especially in urban areas. They did not
appreciate that one implication of Policy H1.A(III) is that “other villages”
no longer have development boundaries. Accordingly, differences of
view as to whether the line of Coton’s boundary has altered now have
little relevance. I address the status of Coton in section 4.3 and find that
it is properly subject to Policy H1.A(III). SDDC’s stance is that once
enough housing land is found in accordance with PPG3’s search
sequence, it is unnecessary to go on to provide for more. This is firmly
based in PPG3.
4.11.286 The site is described as “brownfield”, as a plan dated 1963 shows
buildings on it, but these have long been removed and the paddocks are
properly regarded as greenfield. There was no evidence to counter
SDDC’s view that the buildings were likely to have been agricultural;
even if they were still there, the site would therefore still have been
greenfield as defined by PPG3. Accordingly, even if Coton were
redefined as a “Serviced Village”, with a development boundary, housing
on such greenfield land would breach Policy H1.A(II).
4.11.287 The 2 quoted precedents are separated from the site by open areas and
moreover appear as outliers, distinct from traditional frontage
development. I consider that they are too far away to be used as
arguments to “round off” the boundary. In addition, if the owners of
nearby land were to use similar arguments to permit housing up to a line
established by these developments, the result would be a significant
amount of building behind the frontage. This would harm the village’s
setting as well as conflict with the Plan’s strategy.
202

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
4.11.288 Even if Coton had a development boundary, I consider that to add this
area, protruding into the countryside, well behind the line of the existing
nearest built development, would appear intrusive and not well-related
to the village’s built framework. It would be equally inappropriate to
base a boundary on a line drawn from the outer edges of developments
which currently exist well behind the existing frontage development.
4.11.289 Another objector supports the amendment to Policy H1 in the RDDLP, to
allow some development in “other villages”, but he believes that this is
still too limited. He suggests that the text of Policy H1.A(III) be amended
to permit residential development within “existing residential areas”
subject to criteria. I address this and similar arguments in section 4.2
above.
4.11.290 He seeks a development boundary to include all the garden land, some
0.35ha, behind his property on Mill Street, as following recognisable
features. Even if it were appropriate to define development boundaries
around “other villages”, the suggestion to include all the objector’s
curtilage, including what appears to be a paddock, would encroach into
the countryside. Any development on this land, extending well beyond
the rear boundaries of the adjacent development, would be a prominent
protrusion into the countryside, poorly related to nearby development.
Hartshorne
Objections
F82/1150 Diocese of Derby
G217/1394 Roy Williams and Company
H48/1012, 1013 Messrs Ensor 7
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.291 Messrs Ensor welcome the identification of Hartshorne as a sustainable
settlement but seek the amendment of the development boundary to
include a garden and swimming pool area behind a former bakery on
Main Street.
4.11.292 I saw that a small housing development was under construction on the
site, and it seems that this extends into the omission site.
Circumstances appear to have progressed since SDDC’s rebuttal was
prepared and it would be logical to amend the development boundary to
follow that of the permitted scheme. I recommend this change.
4.11.293 An objector promotes the extension of the development boundary on the
eastern side of Manchester Lane, from its present position around the
parish hall as far as Slack Lane, some 100m further south along the
frontage. The site would include the parish hall car park and a large part
of a currently open field to its east; this rises up from the car park. The
total site area is just under 1ha, with the brownfield section comprising
about 0.1ha.
1
SDDC identified a reference to Shardlow within this objection as a separate objection.
However, this appears to be a misprint for Hartshorne. Objection H48/1013 refers to the
land’s brownfield status.
203

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
4.11.294 The objectors argue that, although Hartshorne is identified as a
sustainable settlement, the boundary has been drawn so tightly that it
does not permit any growth. They say that the site is visually and
locationally suitable to take additional housing, being well-related to the
existing village and that development would accord with a number of
Structure Plan policies without compromising the Plan’s strategic aims or
the government’s sustainability agenda.
4.11.295 It is argued that development would also improve the link between the
car park and the parish church. Church Street is inadequate for parking
and the objectors say that pedestrian access from the existing car park is
along Manchester Lane, which has no footway, then up an unsurfaced
field path into the church grounds. It is envisaged that the car park
would be extended into part of the site; there would then be a more
convenient and surfaced footpath link into the church grounds. The car
park would also be used to serve a nearby public house and dwellings.
Housing on the rest of the site would fund the project. Landscaping in
the form of hedges around the car park and of planting in depth along
the Slack Lane frontage is also proposed, to create a woodland setting
for the housing.
4.11.296 The majority of the land is clearly greenfield, and is within a sub-area
where no such land is needed to meet housing requirements. Moreover,
any development on the site would be prominent because the land rises
above the lane. Housing would be seen as protruding into the open
countryside well beyond the existing built-up framework, and past a
strong hedge which marks a firm boundary to this part of the village. I
consider that housing on this site would be visually harmful. I am not
however persuaded that there need be an adverse impact on the setting
of the listed church when viewed from Slack Lane, because of the
distance involved and the screening effect of the intervening vegetation.
4.11.297 I acknowledge that development on the objection site could benefit the
community by improving both the pedestrian route to the church and
off-street parking facilities in this part of the village. However, I am not
persuaded that these problems are so serious that they would justify a
visually harmful housing scheme in an area where there is no need for
housing development on greenfield land. Nor am I persuaded that there
would be no other way of providing an improved footpath link.
4.11.298 An objection relates to the failure to allocate a site to the south-west of
53 Woodville Road, Hartshorne, for residential development or to
include it within the village boundary. The area involved is some 40m
wide and 30m deep and is the majority of a gap between 2 ribbons of
housing on the south-eastern side of Woodville Road. The objectors say
that it was on the route of the now abandoned Swadlincote by-pass and
so was excluded from the ribbon development.
4.11.299 The site is undeveloped and so, even though a relatively narrow gap in a
developed frontage, is a greenfield site in a sub-area where there is no
need to release greenfield land. Moreover I agree with SDDC that,
although it is narrow, the site performs the important function of
separating the village of Hartshorne from a long ribbon of housing
extending southwards towards the Swadlincote urban area at
Wooodville. At present, Hartshorne’s development boundary extends as
far as the site’s northern boundary, and I consider that this is a logical
204

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
position for the end of the village. Even if the development boundary
were extended to include the site, its greenfield nature would preclude
development under Policy H1.
4.11.300 If the objection site were developed, the distinction between Hartshorne
and the settlements to the south would be lost. The site is clearly seen
as being part of the village’s countryside setting and in my opinion the
consolidation of the ribbon development inherent in the objection would
not protect the countryside.
Linton
Objections
LJ43/1446 Mrs K Rang
J456/77 Mr D Castledine
J503/1046 Mr K Ayton
J507/1297 Mr D Hall
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.301 One objector supports the identification of Linton as a sustainable
settlement but seeks to extend its development boundary to include land
at Grange Farm, which he believes has a closer affinity with the built-up
area of Linton rather than with the open countryside. The farm complex
of mainly traditional buildings is on the south-western side of Coton Park
and behind a ribbon of houses along Hillside Road, from which it is
separated by a hillside paddock. His plan proposes the extension of the
village boundary to include the farm buildings, the farmhouse, the
paddock and the housing on the western side of Hillside Road. It also
proposes to include the ribbon to the north of the junction with Coton
Park Road, but does not show any northern limit.
4.11.302 The main part of the village of Linton, with the majority of its community
facilities, is on the southern side of Hillside Road. In my opinion this
road marks a logical line for the development boundary, distinguishing
the main built-up area from ribbons of housing which extend into open
countryside and contain several open areas. I see no reason to extend
Linton’s development boundary.
4.11.303 Grange Farm and the paddock to its south-east are areas of greenfield
land in terms of PPG3, and in a sub-area where there is no requirement
for greenfield allocations. Moreover, in view of their separation from the
nearest ribbon of housing and their obvious traditional agricultural
appearance, I do not agree that they appear to have a close affinity with
the built-up area of Linton. In my opinion they appear as part of the
countryside and are properly regarded as such in the Plan.
4.11.304 Moreover an Inspector who dismissed an appeal relating to a dwelling on
the paddock in 1989 found that it was not an infill site, was well outside
the village’s built-up area, and that a building on it would damage the
rural character and appearance of the open countryside. In my opinion
there have been no changes in circumstances which warrant a different
finding.
4.11.305 An objector seeks the allocation of land at Hillside Road for general
205

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
housing, with an affordable element. I was provided with no plan, but
SDDC’s rebuttal indicates that the site amounts to some 2ha and is at
the northern end of the ribbon of housing along the northern side of
Hillside Road. The objector says that the site extends back to a disused
railway line, some distance behind the ribbon. He says that the land is
relatively flat, at the end of existing development, and that all services
are available.
4.11.306 Apart from a dwelling and its curtilage, the site is undeveloped and
within the open countryside. It is in an open gap between the ribbon
development and the nearest part of Castle Gresley’s built-up area. On
this side of the road the gap is some 400m wide, and development here
would both intrude into the countryside and erode the open gap between
settlements. In these circumstances I do not consider that there are any
grounds for allocating the site for housing.
4.11.307 Another objector proposes the allocation of some 0.36ha at the end of a
ribbon of housing on the north-eastern side of Coton Park. He argues
that there is an adopted road on the frontage, that it is landlocked but
ideal to infill. He points out that Coton Park is not a separate village but
is in Linton parish; he says that the site would be a natural extension to
the village and would not encroach into the open countryside.
4.11.308 It is not clear to me whether the objector is seeking to extend Linton’s
development boundary. Although in Linton parish, Coton Park is to my
mind a distinct settlement, separated from it by areas of open
countryside; community facilities in Linton are about 2km away. In
these circumstances I consider that Linton’s development boundary
should not be extended to include Coton Park, particularly as this would
involve some areas of greenfield land.
4.11.309 There is an extant planning permission, dating from 2002, for 2
dwellings on the southern half of the objection site; this was granted in
the light of the former Local Plan’s development boundary. I can see
that housing on the southern part of the site would round off the pattern
of development by mirroring the ribbon of houses on the opposite side of
the lane, so providing a logical limit to development. The same would
not be true of the northern half, which would intrude into the countryside
by extending the ribbon of houses up to an isolated dwelling to the
north. Moreover the site is greenfield, and development would not
accord with the Plan’s strategy.
4.11.310 In these circumstances there is no justification either to allocate the site
on to extend Linton’s development boundary.
4.11.311 Another objector seeks to extend the Linton development boundary to
include an overgrown area of land to the north-east of 180 Linton
Heath Road. This is at the end of a row of 5 semi-detached houses on
the northern side of the road. She says that there was a shop, or shops,
on the site at one time, the remnants of which have been found, so it is
brownfield land. Maintaining the land is costly and she says that the
Parish Council has supported development there as a means of tidying it
up. She denies that a precedent would be created.
4.11.312 No plan was provided to me but SDDC’s rebuttal says that the site
extends to some 0.8ha. It accepts that it is previously developed land
but it seems to me that the remains of any structures have so blended
206

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
into the landscape in the process of time that the land can reasonably
considered as part of the natural surroundings. Under PPG3, it would not
accord with the definition of “previously developed land”, despite SDDC’s
acceptance of brownfield status.
4.11.313 Be that as it may, the site is at the end of a ribbon of housing whose
other end is separated from the main village by an open gap some 180m
wide. There is a similar, although longer, ribbon on the opposite side of
the road. I consider that the site is clearly in the open countryside and
beyond the built-up area of Linton. Even if the land were “brownfield”,
this does not necessarily make its development acceptable. In this case
I agree with SDDC, and an Inspector who dismissed an appeal in 1989,
that housing here would extend and consolidate the isolated ribbon of
development, and unacceptably intrude into the countryside.
4.11.314 The land is untidy but in my view this does not justify development
which would breach the Plan’s strategy. I do not agree that allocation
would not set a precedent, as such arguments could be repeated often,
and many owners could allow their land to become neglected to promote
their allocation for new housing.
Lullington
Objections
J882/1305, 41R Mr R Cooper and the trustees of Mr B Cooper
J965/206R Mr I Cooper
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.315 Writing in response to the RDDLP, one objector said “original objection
deleted”, but also said that the objection remained because sites in
Lullington were not allocated. In view of these statements, I address the
objections to both the DDLP and the RDDLP. My consideration of the
objections seeking a development boundary is found in section 4.3.
4.11.316 Two housing allocations are proposed in the context in a decline in
services and population over the last 50 years. One is about 0.15ha on
Lullington Road, on the southern edge of the village, and in the
objection to the FDDLP, it is said that the site could accommodate 3 or 4
detached dwellings. The objection to the RDDLP reduced the number to
2. The other is some 0.7ha on the southern side of Dag Lane, with
another frontage to a lane to the east. It is said that it could provide a
mixed development designed around a village green, with about 35%
(objection to FDDLP) or 50% (to RDDLP) affordable housing. The
development could include home employment opportunities and a shop.
4.11.317 Both of the objection sites are greenfield land and so housing on them
would not accord with the Plan’s strategy. The smaller would extend the
village into open countryside and in my opinion would harm its rural
setting, an important element of the Conservation Area.
4.11.318 The larger comprises an open area of land between the main part of the
village and a row of dwellings to the east. An appeal decision in 1999
recognised the field’s open nature and I consider that it is important to
the character of the village and Conservation Area, which would be
harmed by its loss, even though a layout could include a village green.
207

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
No evidence was produced of an overriding local need for affordable
housing such as to justify the release of this land.
4.11.319 One objector considers that the village should have a development
boundary which should accord with that of the Conservation Area. I
consider the question of the village’s place in the settlement hierarchy
and hence whether it should have a development boundary in section
4.3. I conclude that it is properly regarded as an “other village” and
should not have such a boundary. In any event the Conservation Area
includes the open setting of the village as well as visually important
spaces within it. Even if I considered that there should be a development
boundary, one which would follow that of the Conservation Area would
both permit an excessively large amount of housing in an unsustainable
location and seriously harm the Conservation Area’s character and
appearance.
Netherseal
Objections
J645/245, 250 Mr J W Poultney
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.320 The first objection was against Policy H2, and the second against the Plan
in general but as they are both promoting a housing omission site it is
more appropriate to consider them in this section. Other objections also
oppose any parts of the Plan which do not encourage development or
provide for the optimum use of the objection site.
4.11.321 The objector contends that policies relating to the development of
brownfield sites outside settlements are unduly restrictive and that
provision should be made for their development; this point clearly relates
to housing and is addressed in section 4.2. As an alternative he requests
either the inclusion of his site in a development boundary or a specific
allocation as a housing site.
4.11.322 The objections relate to land at Gunby Farm, about 1km north of
Netherseal. The plan accompanying them is said not to be intended to
indicate the proposed additions to the development boundary or the
promoted allocation, but to initiate discussions. The land contains a
range of farm buildings, some 3 of which appear to be new. The
traditional buildings have been converted to housing, while at least some
of the modern ones are used for various commercial purposes and have
a large car park. SDDC says that these were permitted in accordance
with the aim of diversifying the rural economy. It accepts that these last
are on brownfield land.
4.11.323 The site is clearly in the open countryside well away from any
settlement, and in an area where there is enough housing land allocated.
There is therefore no justification for any greenfield development.
Indeed, housing on this site would breach Policy H5 of the Structure
Plan, which requires development to be located in the wider physical
confines of settlements.
4.11.324 Moreover I consider that it is inappropriate for modern farm buildings in
such locations (which are on greenfield land under the terms of PPG3), to
208

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
become brownfield by obtaining commercial uses and then be considered
suitable for housing. This would not only harm the rural economy but
create an unsustainable pattern of housing development.
Newhall
Objection
J980/233R Mrs McClymont (decd)
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.325 The objector seeks the allocation of some 0.45 ha behind 113 Wood
Lane, Newhall. However, her duly made objection sought an
amendment to the wording of Policy H1 to permit full use of vacant and
backland sites within settlements. It did not promote the omission site,
nor question the results of the UCS. These matters were contained in
subsequent correspondence and do not form part of the duly-made
objection.
4.11.326 As SDDC resists the inclusion of these other matters, I shall not
therefore address the omission site. I consider the points raised in the
duly-made objection in section 4.2.
Newton Solney
Objection
J491/646 Mr H Hiatt
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.327 The objector seeks to extend the development boundary in the adopted
Local Plan to include a narrow strip of land, some 45m long and an
average of 10m wide, behind a small group of bungalows on the
northern side of Church Lane. It is argued that this amendment would
then accord with the lines of the settlement boundaries on either side. It
is clear that the objection seeks to enable a single dwelling to be built, to
a design which complements a nearby cottage.
4.11.328 In fact the Plan deletes any development boundary for the village, and
so brings any housing within the ambit of Policy H1.A(III). I address its
status in section 4.1. The objector disputes that the land is “greenfield”
as there are buildings on 3 sides, but this is not the determining factor.
It appears to me that the site is not within a residential curtilage or
occupied by any structure, and that it is properly regarded as
“greenfield”.
4.11.329 Accordingly, even if Newton Solney were redefined as a “serviced
village” and its development boundary reinstated, housing on this
greenfield site would still breach Policy H1. In any event, the site is not
an infill plot, as it is not within an otherwise developed frontage.
4.11.330 It is claimed that the locations of nearby buildings mean that housing on
the site would not extend into the countryside; it is rather part of the
built-up area of the village. Moreover there is planning permission for a
209

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
school car park and playing areas to be formed in the paddock to the
site’s north. It can be argued that the well-defined hedgerow on the
site’s northern boundary could now be a logical boundary to built
development and would mitigate the effect of development on the
village’s countryside setting, which the previous Local Plan Inspector
found would be unacceptable. Moreover it appears that the recent
permission would extend the village’s framework beyond the site, even
though no buildings would be involved. However, housing on a
greenfield site in such a location, however attractive in design, would still
breach the Plan’s strategy.
4.11.331 I note that in 1994 the County Council advised the objector that it would
not object to a single dwelling on the site. However, under present
planning circumstances there is no justification for including this site
within any development boundary.
Repton
Objections
E26/1008 Church Commissioners for England
G182/1308 Hallam Land Management Ltd
G306/1208 George Wimpey (UK) Ltd & The Governors of Repton
School
J294/1175 Mrs A Smeaton
J466/145, 148 Colin Parson & Joe Bailey
J468/1185, Roger Boissier
1186
J915/1041 Mr R H Perkins
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.332 Objectors seek to reinstate the development boundary in the adopted
Local Plan, which included modern farm buildings to the north of Brook
Farm. These are excluded in the current Plan, and the objectors say
that this is an arbitrary line which bisects the farm complex. They argue
that this unnecessarily limits the scope for conversion or redevelopment
by applying different policies to the same planning unit.
4.11.333 The reasons given by SDDC for amending the adopted Local Plan relate
to the need to protect the rural setting of St Wystan’s church, and of
other listed buildings, and to protect views from Repton Conservation
Area. It argues that housing development on the additional area could
detrimentally affect these features. However, it appears to me that the
prefabricated buildings on the site are in agricultural use, and so are not
brownfield land under the terms of PPG3. Housing development would
not therefore accord with Policy H1.A(II).
4.11.334 The listed church cited by SDDC is at least some 100m from the
objection site, and separated from it by a sports ground. There is a line
of tall vegetation along the brook immediately west of the farm, and to
my mind this and the intervening distance adequately protects the
setting of the listed buildings. The Conservation Area adjoins the site to
the west, and its boundary then passes through the farm complex a few
metres to the south. Those few views from the Conservation Area which
210

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
are currently available are harmed by the existing farm buildings. In my
opinion, should any development prove acceptable, it is likely that by
careful design the setting of the Conservation Area would be enhanced.
Given that the function of the development boundary is to delineate
those areas within which brownfield development would be acceptable in
principle, I do not see any validity in SDDC’s stated reasons for altering
the development boundary. I see no reason why it should not return to
its adopted line.
4.11.335 In the context of a proposed omission site at Burton Road, objectors
say that Repton’s development boundary has been drawn too tightly,
and has not been altered since 1982. They argue that it does not reflect
recent developments, especially along Burton Road, where Repton
School has extended to the west of Tanners Lane and a fence between it
and a long ribbon of housing has effectively extended the built-up area
on the northern side of the road to include the ribbon. It is also said that
the distance between the eastern end of this ribbon and the development
boundary at Chestnut Way on the southern side of Burton Road is less
than a house plot in width. As a result, it is argued that a sense of
development prevails along the built-up length of Burton Road.
4.11.336 It is suggested that the development boundary is extended on the
northern side of Burton Road, to include the ribbon of houses, about
400m long, together with the frontage of playing fields and school
boarding houses, some 150m wide.
4.11.337 However, the boarding houses are set back behind a deep frontage, wellscreened
by tall vegetation, and separated from the built-up area of
Repton to the east by an open area. The fence behind a roadside hedge
is of wire mesh and, although unattractive, neither appears as a solid
object, nor interrupts the essentially open character of this part of
Burton Road. The ribbon of housing appears to me to be physically
distinct from the built-up area of Repton, and is not contiguous with it.
The gap between the eastern end of the ribbon and the nearest house on
Chestnut Way is in my opinion wide enough for the ribbon to be clearly
seen as a separate group of dwellings, divorced from the built-up of
Repton. I see no reason to extend the development boundary in this
area.
4.11.338 The same objectors promote a site of some 8.9ha, accessed from the
southern side of Burton Road, for housing and say that this would be
sufficient to meet any shortfall arising in either of the two sub-areas.
This land extends almost as far westwards as the end of the ribbon on
the northern side, and also runs behind the estate on Chestnut Way. It
is undulating, and slopes down from Burton Road. The objectors say
that it is Grade 2 agricultural land but believe that the site’s merits
justify its loss.
4.11.339 They claim that this is a more sustainable site than some of the Plan’s
allocations, having pedestrian and cycleway links to surrounding
development and being within walking distance of the village centre and
schools. The objectors say that it is on a bus route and close to
Willington railway station, the A38/A50 interchange and the Toyota site
at Burnaston. They say that it is within part of the wider confines of the
village, with 62.5% of its curtilage bounded by existing housing. They
argue that development would therefore be within a sustainable
211

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
settlement. It is also said that there would be no drainage objections
and that development may even alleviate flooding problems in Repton.
4.11.340 The objectors contend that development of their site would provide an
attractive edge to Repton, mitigating the effect of the variety of nearby
architectural styles and boundary treatments. The objections are
supported by a detailed landscape appraisal which has resulted in the
reduction of the size of the site from that which the appraisal
investigated.
4.11.341 Development on this large greenfield site would extend the built-up area
of Repton into open countryside. Although currently partly screened by
hedges along Burton Road, it would be particularly visible from public
footpaths passing through or close to the site. Far from appearing to be
part of the village, it would harmfully intrude into the open countryside
and consolidate the currently isolated ribbon of housing to the north of
Burton Road. In my opinion housing on this land would harm the setting
of the village and be poorly related to the settlement. There would also
be an avoidable loss of high quality agricultural land.
4.11.342 The objectors particularly point to a shortage of affordable housing in
Repton, which is not being met in the Plan. They say that the site could
produce 219 dwellings, 50 of them affordable, but at the Inquiry it was
agreed that PPG3’s advice would increase these figures to 266 and 60
respectively. Affordable housing in Repton is discussed below.
4.11.343 Points made by the same objectors that Repton, and not Swadlincote,
should be the main focus for development and that it should be treated
as being able to provide housing for both the Swadlincote and Derby
sub-areas are dealt with in section 4.0. It is argued that, as commuting
is a feature of the area, new housing should be located close to public
transport and not in areas of low employment, such as Swadlincote.
While there is some employment in Repton, the objectors appear to
accept that residents of their site would generally travel to work
elsewhere. However, leaving aside the point that this is a greenfield site
in an area where no greenfield development is required, the Plan makes
significant provision for employment in Swadlincote, and it is contrary to
the aims of sustainability to provide for development clearly designed for
commuting.
4.11.344 Reference is made to the inclusion of Repton within Policy H1 as a
recognition that it can provide sustainable development, but this is in the
context of a Policy which relates to windfall development which by its
nature would be small in scale.
4.11.345 An objector seeks the allocation of 1.27ha at Chestnut Way for housing
and the extension of Repton’s development boundary to include the site
and other land to the north of Well Lane. He says that the site would be
suitable for either market or retirement housing, and points out that,
without any housing allocations there is little prospect of affordable
housing becoming available in Repton, which is acknowledged as being
an area of high need for it.
4.11.346 He argues that the site has strong boundaries and has housing on 3
sides, with Well Lane containing it on the fourth, so that it is within the
wider confines of the village. The site is immediately west of the
boundary of Repton Conservation Area, which includes the extensive
212

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
grounds of several houses but it is claimed that strong hedges would
prevent development on the site from harming the Conservation Area or
the setting of listed buildings. It is argued that the site is not a valuable
open space and that development would be in keeping with the village’s
scale and character.
4.11.347 He points out that Repton is acknowledged as a sustainable settlement,
with a good level of community and employment facilities and public
transport services, better than Hilton and Willington, where the Plan
proposes major allocations. There is also capacity in the village primary
school. Moreover it is accepted that the site is within easy walking or
cycling distance of these facilities.
4.11.348 The objector acknowledges that this is greenfield land, and I saw that it
is used for grazing livestock. There is no dispute that this is the type of
site which would score highly in PPG3’s search sequence, being on the
edge of a sustainable settlement. However, I am satisfied that SDDC
has demonstrated that there is enough brownfield land in this sub-area
to meet the Structure Plan’s housing land requirements. The objector
has not demonstrated that the identified brownfield sites would perform
so badly in terms of sustainability that this site should be allocated in
preference to them. Accordingly, under the terms of PPG3 there is no
need to go further in the search sequence. Hilton and Willington are in a
different sub-area.
4.11.349 I acknowledge that there is no archaeological objection to the principle of
development, although an evaluation would be required. I also accept
that the development in the vicinity gives a degree of containment to the
site and that the vegetation on adjoining land would protect the setting
of the Conservation Area. Nevertheless as I perceived it, the land has a
marked semi-rural character, a quality that contributes to the
pleasantness of the setting of this part of Repton. I see no strong
justification therefore for the allocation of this greenfield land for
housing.
4.11.350 At present the development boundary stops well short of the site on Well
Lane; the objection involves an extension of the boundary to include the
grounds of the intervening houses on the northern side of the lane.
However, the objector indicates that he does not believe that these areas
would be developable, as the setting of listed buildings should be
affected. As the purpose of development boundaries is to identify those
areas where brownfield development would in principle be acceptable
under the terms of Policy H1.A(II), I therefore see no need to extend this
boundary to include areas where the objector agrees that such
development would be unacceptable. In any event, I consider that these
well-vegetated grounds contribute to the attractive character of this part
of the Conservation Area, and do not give the impression of being part of
a built-up area.
4.11.351 Objection J294/1175 relates to two areas of land on either side of
Milton Road, on the eastern approach to Repton; it is suggested that
the development boundary is extended to include allocations on them. It
is said that both are well-positioned in relation to the village centre and
facilities.
4.11.352 The larger site, some 0.6ha, is on the southern side of the road,
213

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
immediately east of a primary school playing field. It is said that the site
is appropriate for a mixed residential development, to include local needs
housing; an element of 50% is suggested. The objector argues that
development at high density would not intrude into the countryside if
there were adequate landscaping on the eastern boundary. The second
is about 0.2ha on the northern side, on the frontage of Askew Lodge, a
large house set about 80m back from the road. It is said that this is a
brownfield site.
4.11.353 The first site is clearly greenfield land and the second appears to me to
be a paddock rather than part of a residential curtilage and so is also
greenfield under the terms of PPG3. However, even if I am wrong on
this point, PPG3 explains that brownfield status does not of itself mean
that development on such land would be thereby acceptable. In my
opinion the visual impact of any development there would outweigh any
benefits of developing brownfield land.
4.11.354 Both sites are separated from the village’s built-up framework by open
areas, the first by school playing fields and the second by a field (the
subject of objection J915/1041). Because of this separation, neither is
well-related to the settlement. The larger site is elevated and
surrounded by open land, and any development on it would appear
intrusive in the countryside. I do not consider that landscaping could
adequately mitigate this impact. The second site would also intrude into
the rural setting of Repton; although Askew House and Askew Lodge are
behind the site, their well-vegetated grounds reduce their visual
prominence. The same could not be said of development on the
frontage. In my opinion housing on both sites would be visually harmful.
4.11.355 The objections also seek to amend Policy H1 to permit new housing wellrelated
to existing settlements and to ensure that sufficient affordable
dwellings would be provided. It is argued that housing development in
Repton has not addressed this issue and without specific reference in
Policy H1, together with appropriate greenfield and brownfield
allocations, little progress will be made in this Plan period. It is said that
the proposed amendments would provide a choice of sites which are
both suitable and available, as promoted by PPG3.
4.11.356 I address objections seeking to extend the ambit of Policy H1 in section
4.1 above. However, even if either site were to be appropriate for
development, the objector has not demonstrated the nature of the need
which she says exists in Repton.
4.11.357 Objection J915/1041 says that Repton has a range of facilities and
serves a wide rural area, but has no housing allocations. It seeks the
allocation of some 3.4ha of agricultural land on the northern side of
Milton Road, behind and to the east of the estate at Burdett Way. This
objection referred to Policy H2, but it concerns an omission site and is
appropriately addressed in this section. The land rises up behind the
estate and in my opinion is clearly outside the village’s framework it is
prominent when viewed from a distance, as well as from the road and
public footpaths, including one which passes through the site. I consider
that any development here would be particularly intrusive into pleasant
open countryside and harm the setting of Repton.
214

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
4.11.358 The objections by George Wimpey UK Ltd & Repton School relate to 2ha
of land in the latter’s ownership at The Pastures. The objection site is
described by the Objectors as a brownfield redevelopment opportunity
within the defined settlement boundary, which could contribute to the
supply of housing land in the Derby Sub-Area.
4.11.359 As explained in the introductory paragraphs of the Plan, the Structure
Plan sets out the broad planning framework for the District, which is
based on the sub-areas shown on page 7 of the Plan (Plan 2). Although
the objector’s evidence shows that Repton has a close functional
relationship with Derby, the village is clearly within the Swadlincote Sub-
Area. As I have indicated earlier in this chapter of the Report, it would
be inappropriate and inconsistent with the Structure Plan for this Plan to
unilaterally adjust the boundaries of the sub-areas upon which the
strategic planning framework has been established. Enough housing land
is identified in the Swadlincote Sub-Area, either with planning permission
or allocated on brownfield land to meet the requirements of the
Structure Plan. There is no need therefore to allocate the objection site
to contribute to the supply of housing land in the sub-area.
4.11.360 In the absence of such need, the issue of whether or not all or part of
the site comprises previously developed land in applying the sequential
test for the selection of housing land becomes irrelevant. Nevertheless,
it seems to me from the evidence and my visit to the area, that the open
field to the south of the school building (“Mitre Field”) does not comprise
previously developed land notwithstanding its relationship to the school
building. That part of the site is clearly a “green field” in form and
function. Even if the field is legally within the curtilage of the school
building, Annex C of PPG 3 indicates that, as open land, it should not
normally be developed to the boundary of the curtilage.
4.11.361 I accept that the site is within the confines of Repton and is well related
to its facilities. However most of the site falls within an area proposed to
be designated under Policy ENV8 of the Plan as land that contributes
towards character and environmental quality. The site is also within the
designated Repton Conservation Area and close to two listed buildings
designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens which display the characteristics of the
Arts and Crafts movement of the early 20 th century.
4.11.362 The objectors do not consider the site has any particular or special
quality sufficient to justify its protection under Policy ENV8. They refer
to the site’s lack of visual relationship to the general urban from of the
village and to the historic core. However, I saw that the open space
provided by Mitre Field makes a positive contribution to the semi-rural
character and appearance of this part of the conservation area and the
village, which could be harmed by built development, notwithstanding its
design. For that reason, I do not consider the inclusion of the objection
site within an area designated under Policy ENV8 to be inappropriate.
4.11.363 It is difficult to conclude whether housing development on the objection
site would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the
conservation area, or about how it would effect the setting of the listed
buildings, in the absence of detailed proposals. Even so it seems to me
215

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
that very great care would be required to ensure that development, or
indeed landscaping, at the eastern end of Mitre Field did not harm the
existing setting of the listed building at Easton House.
4.11.364 I note that in dismissing an appeal in 1981 an Inspector considered that
8 dwellings would be harmful to a pleasant semi-rural environment and
that the site should not be developed save for an exceptionally strong
reason i.e. housing need. Although that decision is dated and was taken
in the context of a different planning Policy background, in my view there
are no material reasons to question its current relevance to the site. In
the absence of any need to release the site for housing, it is not
unreasonable for the Plan to seek to protect open land within the
conservation area under Policy ENV8. I do not therefore consider that
the objection site at The Pastures should be allocated for housing
development or that its designation under Policy ENV8 should be deleted
from the Plan.
4.11.365 The objection by Hallam Land Management Ltd concerns approximately
3.5ha of land to the south-west of Mount Pleasant Road, which the
objector considers should be allocated for residential (1ha) and public
open spaces (2.5ha) uses. The site is a former brickworks and quarry
that has been filled, but not formally restored. The objector considers
the site is well related to the urban form of the village and its centre, and
represents an opportunity to provide local market and social housing as
well as public open space.
4.11.366 It seems to me that although no formal restoration has been provided
for this previously developed land, it has now blended into the local
landscape of its surroundings and has the appearance of a greenfield
site. In any case the status of the site as former previously developed
land in the search sequence for housing land has little relevance in the
absence of any further need to provide such land in the Swadlincote
Sub-Area.
4.11.367 I recognise that the provision of public open space and social housing on
part of the site might be of benefit to the local community. However no
specific evidence has been produced to demonstrate an overriding need
for that use and I return to the matter below. Furthermore I note that
an appeal was dismissed for the principle of residential development on
the site in 1990 because it would result in an unsympathetic extension of
the village and appear as a major intrusion into the countryside. It
would appear that the Inspector reached that decision on the basis of a
development comprising only 50 dwellings and open spaces, which is
similar to the extent of development now being put forward by the
objector. I am not aware of any material change to the physical
characteristics of the site and its surroundings since 1990 and have no
reason to disagree with the Inspector’s conclusions made at that time,
particularly having seen the site for myself.
4.11.368 I do not therefore consider the objection site south-west of Mount
Pleasant Road should be allocated for housing and public open space
uses as proposed by the objector.
216

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
4.11.369 A number of objectors refer to the acknowledged need for affordable
housing in Repton, and propose an element of such housing on some of
the omission sites, with varying amounts of precision. However, they do
not have firm proposals on how this element would be controlled so as to
remain available to meet local needs. Be that as it may, this matter was
discussed in depth at the inquiry as part of one objection, and is relevant
to the other objections.
4.11.370 Some objectors quoted SDDC’s 1998 “Housing Needs Survey” as
showing a demand for 239 affordable dwellings in the Repton area. At
the Inquiry it was pointed out that the Parish Council questioned the
level of demand for affordable housing in the village itself, pointing to a
figure of 24, some of which were being provided off Springfield Road.
Nevertheless there is clearly a need for some affordable housing in
Repton, but I consider that the visual harm and other of the various
omission sites does not justify allocating them, notwithstanding the
indicated affordable elements. In any event, Policy H10 enables such
housing to be considered on “exception sites”.
Rosliston
Objections
G171/1099, J S Bloor (Measham) Ltd
1100, 218R
J1/22 Mr R A Davoll
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.371 One objector proposes allocating a plot on the northern side of Catton
Lane, on the south-western edge of the village. He agrees to its
description as an “overgrown paddock”. It covers some 0.2ha and he
says that it is too small for agricultural use, not unsustainable, would not
intrude into open countryside but would bring the village development
boundary into line with existing properties. He seeks to build a
bungalow because of his deteriorating health. He argues that SDDC
recognises the need to provide more housing in Rosliston because it has
allocated a site elsewhere in the village, but this has access and drainage
problems.
4.11.372 I consider that the objection site is clearly outside the built-up area of
the village, which is here firmly marked by the curtilages of the adjacent
modern estate. It does not logically relate to the pattern of development
on the other side of the road, which is set further away from the site.
Any housing on the site would be clearly seen as being set forward of
nearby development. To my mind it is in the open countryside; its
prominent position on the edge of the village was recognised in an
appeal decision in 1994, and the intrusion of any development on it
would be made worse by the removal of the high hedge to provide the
necessary visibility. While the objector would plant a replacement, this
would take many years to form an effective screen.
4.11.373 The land is clearly “greenfield” in terms of PPG3. I do not consider that
any problems in using it for agriculture change this status. I have
sympathy with the objector’s health problems, but PPG1 points out that
217

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
personal circumstances seldom justify a permanent development. The
objector would dedicate land to enable the removal of a bend in the
highway, but I do not consider that this offer would justify housing on
the site in conflict with the Plan’s strategy.
4.11.374 SDDC did not comment on the objector’s reference to development on
land behind the Plough Inn. However, he may have misunderstood the
Proposals Map, which shows land behind the Inn, and just outside the
development boundary, to be safeguarded for educational purposes
under Policy C5.
4.11.375 The site is too small for a specific allocation and in my opinion there is
no justification for extending the development boundary; indeed any
extension would not enable development, as housing on greenfield land
would still not comply with Policy H1.A(II). SDDC has agreed that it
wrongly assessed the level of community facilities in its original rebuttal,
and I am not persuaded that there is a significant difference between a
“village hall” and a “community centre”. Nevertheless, Rosliston is still
subject to this Policy. I also share SDDC’s view, and that of an Inspector
in 2000, that public transport is inadequate. I agree that this makes
development of such greenfield land particularly unsustainable.
4.11.376 An objection promotes the allocation of land off Burton Road for
housing and a car park, and the extension of the development boundary
to include these areas. In the original objection, the site extended to
some 3ha on the northern side of Rosliston’s built-up area and to the
east of Burton Road. It included an illustrative scheme showing an
access road off the Burton Road frontage. This would provide access to
about 45 dwellings on 2 parcels totalling some 1.5ha. Between them
would be a parking area to serve the parish church and, via a footpath,
the primary school; some 60 spaces are shown. To the north of the
access road would be a wooded area, with footpaths linking with National
Forest proposals to the north.
4.11.377 However, in submissions to the Inquiry, the objection was modified to
delete the eastern section of the land, so that the housing allocation
would now relate only to the first parcel. This has an area of some 0.6ha
and the objectors promote its allocation for 15-20 dwellings. The
proposals for a car park and woodland planting remain. The objectors
say that the site adjoins housing to the south and west, so is well-related
to the village’s physical confines, and that the scale of housing would
support local services. It could provide a range of house types and
tenures, including affordable housing.
4.11.378 The objectors say that Rosliston is accepted as a sustainable location for
new development and is a local service centre; SDDC is proposing to
improve educational facilities. There is said to be a good level of public
transport and the village has community and employment facilities.
However, it is clear that bus services are poor, especially for travel to
work in the mornings. While Rosliston is currently defined as a “serviced
village”, I do not believe that this makes it an appropriate location for
expansion contrary to strategic planning policies. Moreover I am not
satisfied that a housing development of the proposed size, or one which
would comply with PPG3’s density guidelines, would secure the provision
of a better level of public transport.
218

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
4.11.379 The site is clearly greenfield in a sub-area where housing land
requirements can be met soley on brownfield land, so there is no
strategic argument in favour of an allocation here. Moreover I take
SDDC’s point that, as the site is grade 2 agricultural land, release in
advance of development on brownfield land and within urban areas
would conflict with PPG7.
4.11.380 SDDC refers to an appeal decision a short distance away across Burton
Road, relating to 5 dwellings. There the Inspector found that the
proposal before him would be harmful to the rural setting of the village
at an approach to it. The objection site is more elevated and could
accommodate a larger development; housing on it would to my mind
also be prominent at the entrance the village although I appreciate that
in the long term the proposed planting would soften its edge.
Development would be readily visible from both the road and from wellused
public footpaths in the vicinity. In my opinion housing on the site
would not relate well to the village’s setting.
4.11.381 I acknowledge the benefit of the proposed car park, but I doubt whether
it would be an attractive option to serve the school, as pedestrian access
would be by a narrow unlit footpath with poor surveillance, compared
with the ability to park closer to the school, either on the street or in the
post office car park. SDDC has also held out the possibility that a car
park to serve the church could be considered under other policies. In
any event I am not convinced that such a large car park is needed.
4.11.382 It is argued that only one of the 6 sites allocated in the Swadlincote subarea
would have affordable housing, so would contribute little to the
area’s needs. Moreover it is pointed out that tightly-drawn development
boundaries do not permit housing developments large enough to contain
an affordable element. No evidence was given of the level of need for
affordable housing in Rosliston. In any event, while Policy H10 would
enable the provision of such housing on the site, it may also permit it on
suitable “exception sites”, without the need for market housing. In all
these circumstances I do not consider that associated benefits to the
community are so compelling as to justify an allocation here.
Stapenhill
Objection
F78/131 Diocese of Derby
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.383 In recognition of the contribution of Burton-on-Trent to the local
economy, the objectors seek to release land on what they say is the
periphery of its urban area. They argue that a residential allocation in
association with the large employment allocation at Drakelow power
station would produce a sustainable mixed use development.
4.11.384 They promote the allocation of a large area of agricultural land, which I
estimate as some 15 to 20ha, to the south of Stapenhill between the
western side of Rosliston Road and a wooded area next to a stream.
They indicate that highway considerations may need to be resolved.
They say that the site would provide groundfill opportunities and the use
219

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
of previously developed land, while enabling the existing urban area to
be extended, housing to be concentrated in larger settlements, and
transport facilities to be enhanced.
4.11.385 The objectors’ response to the RDDLP points out that there will be a
projected deficit of housing land in the Swadlincote sub-area, which will
have to be addressed by allocating greenfield sites. They argue that
allocating this site would meet the projected shortfall. However, the
updated details in the Housing Topic Paper (CDA27) demonstrate that
there is no shortfall of housing land in the Swadlincote sub-area, and so
no need to allocate any greenfield land within it.
4.11.386 The main developed area of Stapenhill is on the northern side of the
railway, which forms a firm physical boundary to Stapenhill about 300m
beyond the nearest part of the site’s frontage. Development on the site
would extend a further 300m southwards and in my opinion would
appear as an isolated and prominent estate, producing in effect a finger
of housing which would intrude into the open countryside and be
unrelated to the main built-up area of Stapenhill.
4.11.387 The site would not in my opinion be easily accessible to the proposed
employment allocation at Drakelow power station (EMP1), which would
be about 1.5 to 2km away by a tortuous route; indeed the objectors
speak of the need for highway improvements. Moreover they clearly
envisage that residents would use facilities in Burton; the need to travel
to them, which would be mostly by private car, indicates the poor
sustainability of development on the objection site.
4.11.388 I consider that there is no justification to allocate this large greenfield
site, which would be poorly-related to any nearby settlement and
harmfully intrude into open countryside.
Swadlincote
Objection
G182/1303 Hallam Land Management Ltd
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.389 The objectors argue that insufficient land has been allocated for housing
development and that their sites are better than the Plan’s allocations.
Some 33.75ha at Broomy Farm, to the west of Woodville Road, is
proposed as an allocation. The objectors say that it lies substantially
within a former railway cutting, and so has brownfield attributes. It is
also adjacent to the existing built-up area and well-related to it. It is
said to come next after brownfield land in order of sustainability, and can
be released if there are delays in brownfield land coming forward. It is
said that there have historically been such delays.
4.11.390 The land consists of several fields in agricultural use on a hillside rising
up south-westwards from the access road to Broomy Farm, towards the
line of a former railway, which marks the site’s south-western boundary.
The site runs behind a ribbon of development along Woodside Road, but
has a length of road frontage in its northern section. The southern half
of its north-western boundary adjoins a housing estate, and the
220

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
remainder is next to open fields.
4.11.391 It is incorrect to say that the site is substantially in a railway cutting;
only a very small part in the extreme south-west is the route of a railway
and I do not dispute SDDC’s statement that this comprises 2% of the
total area. The majority of the land is clearly greenfield. Moreover it is
in a sub-area where there is enough brownfield land to meet the
Structure Plan’s housing requirements. The objectors have given no
evidence of any likely delays in bringing brownfield land forward and in
my opinion there is no strategic need for its allocation.
4.11.392 The land is a prominent hillside, readily visible from Woodville Road and
an extensive rural area to the north and north-east, crossed by several
public footpaths. Some also pass through the site. Any development on
the land would appear very intrusive in the open countryside and
moreover would erode the softness which existing school playing fields
give to this part of the boundary of Swadlincote’s built-up area.
Winshill
Objection
H45/1300 J Lomas and Partners
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.393 The objectors say that most new development in the Swadlincote subarea
is to be allocated in Swadlincote itself, with none in other
settlements, even if defined as sustainable. They say that Winshill,
although in East Staffordshire Borough, is a significant and sustainable
settlement and that SDDC should assess the potential for allocating land
on its eastern edge.
4.11.394 They propose the allocation of about 7ha on the southern side of
Hawfield Lane and immediately east of the development at Winshill. The
land surface is slightly undulating, but it is generally higher than the lane
and lower than that of the adjacent parts of the estate. The site’s
western boundary is that of SDDC’s area. The objection site is part of
Common Farm, whose buildings are to the east of the site.
4.11.395 It does not appear to me that the objection seeks to allocate part of East
Staffordshire’s requirements to this site in South Derbyshire. It rather
seems to be based on a belief that development should be “shared out”
between settlements; however this approach would be contrary to
national guidance.
4.11.396 Even though there is a range of facilities, including public transport, in
the adjacent estate, the site is still greenfield land in the Swadlincote
Sub-area. Moreover, when viewed from the east it is prominent near the
top of a rise and any development would be seen as intruding into the
open countryside on the fringe of Winshill beyond what is at present a
clearly defined edge to the settlement. In my opinion this harmful
impact would compound this site’s unacceptability.
221

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
Woodville
Objections
H18/1343 Dyson Industries Ltd
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.11.397 The objectors seek the allocation of land at Mount Pleasant Works,
Occupation Lane, as a housing site. Their land holding, of about 27ha, is
split by the indicative line of the Swadlincote Regeneration Route (Policy
T12). Their objection says that it relates to the area to the east of the
line, although the supporting plan shows the omission site as including
their land to the west. This western section is allocated under Policy
EMP1, which they support. For the avoidance of doubt I am treating this
objection as relating to that part of their land to the east of the route,
amounting to about 12ha. I address objections to Policy T12 separately.
4.11.398 In the east the omission site extends to Moira Road. The land slopes
down from a high point near the Occupation Lane / Moira Road junction
towards the north-west. Its south-western section adjoins the objectors’
large commercial premises. It consists of restored mineral workings,
largely under grass. The objectors say that a large part of the site is
surplus to their operational requirements and is available for
redevelopment. They have been promoting development on this land
since 1993 and showed that in 1995, at the time of the preparation of
the adopted Local Plan, SDDC confirmed that the site had long-term
development potential; the Inspector recognised that this point had
been made.
4.11.399 They also point out that, with existing development and allocations, the
land will eventually be surrounded by development and would be a
logical infilling site. It is also said to be a sustainable location, close to
services. In my opinion the site is far too large for any development on
it to accord with the normally accepted definition of “infilling” - a narrow
gap within an otherwise developed frontage. I do not consider that the
nature of existing or proposed development in the surrounding area
justifies housing on such a large site.
4.11.400 In the objection, the objectors accepted that the site is greenfield land,
but they said that it is poor in quality and has limited agricultural
potential. However, in their written representations they retreat from
this position and argue that the land has been “reclaimed” by the
addition of a thin level of topsoil, although they describe it as “low grade
pasture”. They say that this is distinct from being “restored” – a term
used in PPG3’s definition of previously developed land – which, it is
argued, infers being returned to its original condition.
4.11.401 It appears to me that PPG3 distinguishes between mineral workings
which have been, or will be, restored by the exercise of planning controls
and those which would remain unrestored because no planning
permission requires remedial works. Neither the objectors nor SDDC
have demonstrated whether or not the works which have been carried
out were required by the terms of a permission. In the absence of such
information, which would go to the heart of the objectors’ argument, I
must rely on the existing condition of the site.
222

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
4.11.402 It seems to me that the land has been graded, soiled and seeded and is,
as the objectors say, pastureland. There are no signs of former mineral
workings, and the site has the appearance of a grassed hillside. Even if
this condition had not been secured by the terms of a planning
permission, to my mind the land has the appearance of the type of
restored workings which PPG3 defines as “greenfield”. In these
circumstances I consider that this site is properly regarded as being
greenfield land. Accordingly, as there is enough brownfield land in the
Swadlincote sub-area to meet housing land requirements, there is no
strategic need to consider releasing this site.
4.11.403 The objectors also argue that the land’s reclaimed nature has not added
to the quality of the area’s environment or produced valuable open
space. They argue that the loss of a large expanse of rough land would
enhance the amenity of the area. I do not recognise this description as
applying to the omission site; from both close by and a distance it
appears as a green hillside giving a pleasant break on the fringes of an
urban area.
4.11.404 In its rebuttal, SDDC indicates that this site may be suitable to make up
some or any shortfall in housing land supply. Be that as it may, there is
no such shortfall. I make no finding on the possibility of development in
the longer term, but I do not consider that any case can be made out
that the existing condition of the site is detrimental to the area’s
amenity. Indeed, it could be argued that the currently open nature of
this prominent hillside could reduce its suitability as a development site
into the longer term.
RECOMMENDATIONS
I recommend that:
A. The Plan be modified by amending the development boundary of Hartshorne to
follow the rear boundary of the housing development on the site of the former
bakery.
B. The Plan be modified by reinstating the development boundary in the vicinity of
Brook Farm, Repton, to that in the adopted Local Plan.
C. Consideration be given to including land at Egginton Road, Hilton within a
development boundary
D. Consideration be given to allocating the following sites for housing
development and including these areas within the relevant development
boundaries:
i) Land south of Hilton Road, Etwall;
ii) Land at Egginton Road, Hilton;
iii) Land at Highfields Farm, Littleover;
iv) Land at Station Road, Melbourne;
v) Land at Stenson Fields;
vi) Land at Stenson Meadows.
E. Consequential amendments be made to the details of housing supply in Table 1.
223

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
4.12 POLICY H9: CHANGE OF USE OF BUILDINGS
Objections
D7/202R Government Office for the East Midlands
G211/67R Mr C E Timothy
G246/557 Derby Self Build Housing Society Limited
G253/261 Countany Ltd.
J452/1139 Mr John Wren
J503/1047 Mr K Ayton
J504/212 Mr J D Deakin & Sons
J645/247 Mr J W Poultney
J814/529 Mr & Mrs A H Blackwell
J915/1042 Mr R H Perkins
J917/1091 & Mr S Frawley
181R
Issues
a. Whether the approach towards the conversions of buildings in the
countryside is too restrictive.
b. Whether the guidance on housing in the open countryside is adequate.
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.12.1This policy is deleted in the RDDLP; the locational and design considerations
are now to be found in revised Policies H1 and ENV21 respectively.
4.12.2Although Policy H9 is cited in the one of the objections by the Derby Self
Build Housing Society Limited, the actual objection is directed at the noninclusion
of a specific site in the Plan. As this dealt with at 4.11.54. I make
no comments on the objection under this heading.
4.12.3While existing buildings represent a resource, I see nothing untoward in the
approach taken towards residential conversions outside the main
settlements. The preference shown to conversions to commercial uses in
rural areas is in line with the relevant guidance in PPG7. For this reason,
and as, for the most part at least, buildings outside the settlements
identified in the Plan are likely to be in less sustainable locations, I see no
reason why the policy should be modified so as to encourage residential
conversions in locations other than those indicated.
4.12.4The housing section of the Plan does not include a policy expressly directed
at housing in the open countryside. However, this subject does fall within
the ambit of Policy ENV7. Provided that a modified version of the latter is
incorporated into the Plan in accordance with my recommendation, I
consider this, coupled with the explanatory text to Policy H1, would cover
the matter adequately in a manner consistent with PPG7. In the light of this
I do not find the efficacy of the plan has suffered as a result of deletion of
Policy H9(b). Mindful that Policy EMP2 provides for the re-use or adaptation
of rural buildings for small scale industrial and business uses, and having
regard to the main thrust of the housing strategy, I am not satisfied that
the absence of a policy that addresses the residential re-use of buildings
outside the identified settlements is a deficiency that needs to be remedied.
224

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that no modification be made to the Plan.
4.13 POLICY H10 - AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Objections
D7/1506 Government Office for the East Midlands
E3/1066 The Countryside Agency
F10/958 CPRE
F14/1470
G136/1290
The House Builders Federation
Mr E A Chamberlain
G216/1078 RMC (UK)
G243/1410 David Wilson Estates, Miller Homes (East Midlands) &
Taylor Woodrow
G246/559 Derby Self Build Housing Society Ltd
G258/1380 Miller Homes East Midlands
G305/1178 Samphire Properties Ltd
H53/1210 Roger Bullivant Ltd
J915/1043 Mr R H Perkins
J917/1092 Mr S Frawley
Issues
a. Whether affordable housing is appropriately defined in the policy.
b. Whether the affordable housing figures are adequately justified.
c. Whether the policy is sufficiently flexible.
d. Whether it is appropriate to direct affordable housing development towards
the larger sites.
e. Whether the site size thresholds are appropriate.
f. Whether the policy provides sufficient clarity on the development of rural
exception sites.
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.13.1 Policy H10 is cited in the objections by the Derby Self Build Housing
Society Ltd. However, that Society’s objection seeks the inclusion of a
specific site in the Plan for affordable housing, rather than address any
specific aspect of the policy. As the merits of that site are dealt with at
paragraph 4.11.54 above, I make no comments on the objection under
this heading.
Definition of affordable housing
4.13.2 The explanatory text in the RDDLP includes a definition of affordable
housing. This definition is reproduced from national policy guidance on
affordable housing in Circular 6/98. In my view this change directly
overcomes those objections which seek the inclusion of a definition of
affordable housing in the Plan.
4.13.3 One objector has expressed concern that the wording in the final
paragraph of the policy would exclude the provision of low cost market
housing, contrary to the definition of affordable housing in Circular 6/98.
However, this objection has been overcome through the inclusion of the
225

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
words “with particular regard to part D” at the beginning of this paragraph
in the RDDLP. The additional text clarifies that the reference to affordable
housing being retained in perpetuity relates only to the development of
exception sites. This accords with PPG3, annex B, paragraph 6 and I am
satisfied this change to the Plan adequately addresses the objection.
Affordable housing figures
4.13.4 There have been significant changes made to the policy and explanatory
text in the RDDLP. One consequence of this is that a number of the
concerns raised by objectors in relation to the DDLP version of the policy
have been addressed.
4.13.5 The requirement for sites to provide ‘no less than 20%’ affordable housing
has been replaced with a 20% starting point for negotiations. However, a
number of objectors indicate that they do not believe there is sufficient
justification for the reference to 20% affordable housing in the policy. In
response the Council point to the recently published Housing Market &
Needs Study 2002 (HMNS) as evidence of the housing needs in the
District, and state that the findings of this survey substantiate the policy
in the Plan.
4.13.6 I will therefore look in more detail at the methodology and findings of the
HMNS. However, before doing so, there are 2 discrete matters raised by
the objectors which need to be addressed.
4.13.7 First, it would appear as though there is an arithmetical error in the
conclusions on page 75 of the HMNS. Based on the figures provided in
Section 6, the calculation of overall housing need when added together
correctly amounts to 1,043 for South Derbyshire, rather than the 1,090
figure quoted in the HMNS. The Council acknowledges the error
(SDDC/HRTS/REBUTTAL/2) but explains that the 1,090 figure is correct.
It is the figure for ‘needs from emerging households’, imported from
elsewhere in the document, that has been translated incorrectly.
4.13.8 Secondly, despite acknowledging the DETR guidance entitled ‘Housing
Needs Assessment: A Guide to Good Practice’ (July 2000), the author of
the HMNS claims at section 1.8 of the Study that “as yet there is no right
or widely accepted way of establishing ‘housing need’”. I accept that the
basic needs model in the DETR Guide may have a number of
shortcomings, however, to my knowledge it remains the only recognised,
government-published, methodology for assessing housing needs. For
this reason, contrary to the view expressed in the HMNS, I believe the
guide does constitute a ‘widely accepted way of establishing housing
need’.
4.13.9 Table 2.1 of the guide outlines a methodology for housing needs
assessments which paragraph 2.3 then goes on to confirm “presents a
basic needs assessment model which all local authorities should try to
follow”. Since the HMNS was commissioned in May 2002, it is reasonable
to expect the author of the Study to have taken into account the guidance
in the preparation of the HMNS. This would not be a matter of great
concern had the methodology adopted in the Study followed a similar
approach to that of the guidance, or an alternative but equally robust
assessment. But, as I will explain, this is not the case
4.13.10 With regard to the methodology that has been adopted in the HMNS,
226

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
there are a number of causes for concern, including the following matters.
With regard to households living in unsuitable accommodation, it is not
clear whether there are solutions available to meet their needs which do
not require alternative accommodation. Nor is it apparent that income
data has been correlated with the data on households in unsuitable
housing. Thus it cannot be assumed that a household that expresses the
view that its accommodation is unsuitable is not in a position to seek
alternative open-market accommodation elsewhere. The Study also
contains a number of questionable assumptions. For example, the results
of the survey on the suitability of accommodation suggest that two
categories, namely ‘rent/mortgage too expensive’ and ‘needs major
repairs’, would commonly be considered as constituting housing need.
The reasons for this assumption are not adequately explained.
4.13.11 In addition to the above, I am concerned over the lack of a
comprehensive survey in the assessment of housing needs.
4.13.12 In the Council’s rebuttal proof (SDDC/HRTS/REBUTTAL/2) reference is
made to page 35 of the DETR guide (2000). Here it states that “it is
important to remember that surveys are not the only source of
information on many aspects of housing need and supply. The optimum
approach is some combination of periodic survey and regular monitoring
of secondary and administrative data sources”. Whilst the HMNS clearly
goes into some detail in assessing the secondary and administrative data
sources, other than the survey of Melbourne in October 2000, there is no
comprehensive survey work to support the assessment.
4.13.13 On the basis of the DETR guidance it would appear that a comprehensive
survey is an important, if not vital, component of a housing needs
assessment. Until such a time as a nationally recognised and accepted
alternative methodology becomes available, I believe it is necessary to
follow the guidance and, where necessary, undertake a survey of housing
need as part of the assessment.
4.13.14 Although I accept that the 1,090 figure in the HMNS correct, it is the
methodology used to derive this figure, rather than the figure itself, which
causes me some concern. Indeed, I am not confident the findings of the
HMNS represent a robust and accurate representation of the housing
needs in the District as required by PPG3. In such circumstances it seems
to me that the Council, as a matter of urgency, should revisit its
assessment of housing need in accordance with the approach proposed in
the DETR guidance.
4.13.15 Even so, I have not been presented with any evidence to suggest that
there is no need for affordable housing in the District during the Plan
period. The level of affordable housing to be provided on any one site will
continue to be a matter for negotiation. But, in view of the factors set out
above, I consider that figures contained within the policy need to be
reconsidered. The figure of 800 units of affordable housing in part A of
the policy appears to be a best estimate, rather than a number based
upon sound calculations. As such, I think this number should be deleted
from the policy. I also think that parts B and C of the policy should be
modified to indicate that the Council’s starting point for negotiation will be
affordable housing provision of up to 20%. This will allow for provision in
accordance with the numerical conclusions (corrected arithmetically) in
the HMNS, if further investigations shows those conclusions to be valid.
227

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
But will also allow for lower levels of provision if that is what is found to
be appropriate.
Flexibility in the policy
4.13.16 Although the changes made in the RDDLP have increased the flexibility in
the policy, there is still no recognition of the need to take into account
other factors that may effect the viability or suitability of a site for
affordable housing. I believe it is important to acknowledge that such
factors must be taken into consideration in the negotiations between the
Council and a developer over the level of affordable housing provision
within a scheme. I recommend accordingly.
Affordable housing on larger sites
4.13.17 The Plan proposes that the vast majority of the strategic housing
requirement for South Derbyshire should be met on a number of large
allocated housing sites. One consequence of this strategy is that the
majority of new affordable housing delivered during the Plan period will
inevitably also come forward on these sites.
4.13.18 Whilst a greater geographical spread of new affordable housing may
better address the existing and prevailing housing needs of the District, in
practice this cannot be achieved without a radical change to both the
Plans distribution strategy and the housing allocations. I do not believe
that the distribution of housing need is sufficient in itself to warrant a
change to the distribution strategy which is based on the principles of
sustainability.
Site size thresholds
4.13.19 Objections to the DDLP were concerned that the provisions of part B of
the Policy were not consistent with Circular 6/98. Thresholds, consistent
with those set out in Paragraph 10 of Circular 6/98, have subsequently
been inserted in part C of the RDDLP policy, which I find acceptable.
Rural exception sites
4.13.20 Rural exception sites are as the name suggests, housing sites which are
permitted as an exception to normal planning policy. This is clarified in
paragraph 4 of Annex B to PPG3. Here it states that “the basis of the
policy is essentially one of permitting very limited exceptions to
established policies of restraint”. The paragraph goes on to say that “it
will be inappropriate for policies to identify particular sites and allocate
them for affordable housing in the local plan or to reserve land allocated
in the plan to meet general housing demand for local needs only”.
4.13.21 It would clearly be contrary to this guidance to recommend the allocation
of any rural exception site whether or not it was named as such. For this
reason I cannot support the proposal by the Countryside Agency for the
allocation of ‘Sites of Social Diversity’. Nor can I recommend the
allocation of any sites for 100% affordable housing as proposed by other
objectors.
4.13.22 The Countryside Agency wishes to see additional criteria in the policy to
ensure that exception housing sites are suitably located. The additional
criteria, it is argued, would ensure that all new development in the
countryside is sensitively located and enhances the environment and local
228

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
distinctiveness of the area. To a large extent these matters are
adequately covered by other policies in the Plan, such as Policies ENV21
and ENV3. However, another objector has suggested that the policy
should require that exception sites must be ‘in or on the edge of
settlements’. Such a provision would be consistent with national
guidance, which (at paragraph 2 of PPG3 annex B) states that “an
exception policy enables the authority to grant planning permission for
small sites, within and adjoining existing villages, which may be
subject to policies of restraint” [my emphasis]. I will therefore
recommend that part D of the policy should include a provision that
affordable housing on exception sites is well-related to existing settlement
patterns.
4.13.23 It has also been suggested that exception sites are ‘developed by a
registered social landlord only’. In my view this is unduly restrictive.
Given that the policy already requires affordable housing provided through
exception sites to be retained in perpetuity, it is unnecessary to require
the involvement of a registered social landlord in such developments.
Provided a development proposal fulfils the requirements of the policy this
should be sufficient to ensure the affordable housing provided is managed
appropriately.
RECOMMENDATIONS
I recommend that the Plan be modified by:
A. by deleting part A of Policy H10 and inserting in its place:
THE DISTRICT COUNCIL WILL SEEK THE PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING WITHIN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS HAVING REGARD TO
LOCAL EVIDENCE OF NEED. THE PROPORTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ON EACH SITE WILL BE DETERMINED THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN
THE COUNCIL AND DEVELOPER, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL FACTORS
RELEVANT TO THE VIABILITY AND SUITABILITY OF THE SITE.
B. by inserting at the end of part B of Policy H10:
THE COUNCIL’S STARTING POINT FOR NEGOTIATION WILL BE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION OF UP TO 20%.
C. by deleting the last sentence of part C of Policy H10 and inserting in its place
the words:
THE COUNCIL’S STARTING POINT FOR NEGOTIATION WILL BE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION OF UP TO 20%.
D. by deleting the first sentence of part D of Policy H10 and inserting in its
place:
A PROPOSAL FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, ON LAND WITHIN OR
ADJOINING AN EXISTING SETTLEMENT, THAT WOULD NOT NORMALLY BE
RELEASED FOR DEVELOPMENT WILL BE PERMITTED PROVIDING THAT THE
PROPOSAL:
229

South Derbyshire Local Plan - Inspector's Report
I further recommend that the Council reconsiders its Housing Market & Needs
Study 2002 in the light of the methodology recommended in the DETR publication
‘Housing Needs Assessment: A Guide to Good Practice’.
4.14 POLICY H11: SITES FOR GYPSIES AND TRAVELLERS
Objection
G246/561 Derby Self Build Housing Society Limited
Issue
None identified.
Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions
4.14.1The policies cited by this objector extend to Policy H11, albeit I am unable to
identify anything in the actual submissions expressly directed at the policy.
As noted above, the actual objection is directed at the non-inclusion of a
specific site in the Plan, which is dealt with at 4.11.54. Accordingly,
therefore, I make no comment on the objection purported to have been
made under this heading.
4.14.2It is not clear form the explanatory text to what extent, if any, the policy is
underpinned by an assessment of housing need for Gypsies and travellers.
As this could have implications for any planning appeals that may arise,
this is a point that the Council may wish to give some consideration to. But,
in the absence of any objection to the policy itself, I am not satisfied that
any modification to the Plan is needed.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that no modification be made to the Plan.
230