Planning application 24/00546/OUT Land off Throstle Nest Way, Brailsford

Statement to the Planning Committee in relation to:

24/00546/OUT Land off Throstle Nest Way, Brailsford

Brailsford and Ednaston PC wish to reiterate and bring to the attention of members of the Planning Committee the following in relation to the above:

The Site

1. This site lies outside the development boundary which was approved after consultation as appropriate to meet need in the current Local Plan and forms the basis of the approved Neighbourhood Plan. The site has been the subject of earlier refusals. It should therefore be refused again. If this is not the case, residents ask what is the purpose of a Local Plan (and the Neighbourhood Plan equivalent) if this well-defined criterion is simply over turned or ignored.
2. In addition, the site failed the priority assessment for development in the SHLAA published in 2022 – a continuation of the determination made in the earlier SHLAA which formed the basis of the current Local Plan. The criteria used remain those identified in earlier refusals. Nothing substantive has changed.
3. Throstle Nest Way is not a brownfield or greyfield site as identified by the current government as priorities for development. It is land in much needed agricultural use. Neither is it located near places of significant employment meaning that any new residents are likely to travel for work making the village (and the Parish) a dormer location. The 2021 Census data established that Brailsford residents (which will include residents of the new estates) travel on average 16.6 km to work – significantly higher than the Derbyshire Dales average of 14.8 km.

Over Development

1. If approved the site's location at the eastern end of the village would add significantly to the 'urban sprawl' created by some 200 new houses in large estates to the west and north of the village. These numbers have now been compounded by the decision of the Planning Inspectorate to approve a further estate of 70 homes to the south and west of the village.
2. The village of Brailsford has more than doubled in size since 2017 during the lifetime of the current Local Plan. Conversely there has been little recognition of the need for new infrastructure such as water management and sewage treatment plant, road improvements or amenity and community facilities. The overdevelopment has been recognised and commented upon by external parties such as the former and now current MPs.
3. If approved the current application would increase the number of additional homes to c 400 on completion – approaching 4 times the original village size. The 2021 census data for the Parish confirms the view of the Parish Council that Brailsford is a relatively unsustainable location for further development because;

• Large scale development is clearly detrimental to the village rural setting and its historical formation (the latter recognised by DCC's Conservation Officer)
• There is little local employment opportunity
• The creation of large insular estates does not support social cohesion in the village environment and the type of home to be offered does not meet identified social need.

1. The cumulative impact of developments in a small village is never taken into account and a cumulative assessment should be mandatory for every new development.

Infrastructure

1. Despite well-documented and regular occurrences of flooding, the developer's plan appears to rely on channelling water and sewage into the existing drainage systems and takes no account of the increasing level of flood risk along Alley Walk and onto the A52. This plan reiterated in contributions made by Lees Roxbugh consultants in relation to the application.
2. The A52 is frequently flooded at various points through the Parish but most significantly from Alley Walk to the Rose & Crown pub on the edge of the village. There are a number of recorded instances of sewage spillage into local watercourses: these, along with regularity of flooding, appear to have increased since the new developments to the north took place. This matter was raised by residents when the Committee considered the recent application by Cameron Homes. The applicant should be required to make an assessment of the cost of renewing the relevant drainage infrastructure and consideration given to a significant financial contribution.
3. It should also be noted that the Parish has limited community facility/amenity for the use of the growing population. Some key features such as the local allotments have already been lost to development.
4. Surprisingly the DDDC Community Development Officer seems to feel that no contribution is needed from the developer who, it seems, plans to install a local standard form of estate play area. The village already has a number of these which do not contribute to general community amenity and will ultimately result in cost to those acquiring the properties through their management/maintenance agreements. Meanwhile the village needs the refurbishment/redevelopment of the Village Hall (Brailsford and Ednaston Institute) and the upgrading of the Brailsford Park – a central location. Improvements to both would result in the opportunity for more community cohesion as places for residents to meet away from the estate locations. There has been no contact with the Parish Council about such investments although these were raised in our earlier correspondence. In any consideration of this application an allowance should be made for a developer contribution to improved community amenity. A precedent was set for this in the determination of the permission for the Avant Estate when a specific contribution was made to plans for the redevelopment of the Institute.

Traffic

1. The proposed access arrangements for the site are considered to be unsuitable and inadequate. Traffic will access through an existing estate – an estate road on Throstlenest Way, and along The Plain, exiting onto Luke Lane at a point close to the A52 junction and opposite the access to another development – Dairy Mews Farm.
2. Luke Lane, which is a C class road, already carries all the additional traffic from three new estates lying to the west and north. A recent traffic survey commissioned by the Parish Council clearly states that there is a concern that no cumulative assessment of traffic movements is made when new applications are considered and if this was to be the case, it could raise queries about the adequacy of the Luke Lane junction especially at peak times.
3. Luke Lane is also the traditional route for HGVs accessing the established local quarries and aggregate plants located outside the Parish boundary. The traffic survey commissioned by the Parish council confirms that there is a higher than standard usage of this standard of route by HGVs. The volume of HGV movements is compounded during peak times by traffic using the Lane for access to the Primary School.
4. The 2021 census confirms (as did the previous one) that the average car ownership in Brailsford is higher at 1.76 per household than comparable measures in Derbyshire Dales (1.49) and Derbyshire as a whole (1.36). The Brailsford average for car usage is 88.6% of modal share against an average of 77% for Derbyshire as a whole. On this basis traffic movements from the proposed new estate are therefore likely to be underestimated. The applicant should therefore be asked to review/recalculate their traffic assessments before any determination is made, clearly stating the use of neutral months, and including a cumulative assessment and modelling of the movements onto Luke Lane as a result of the new developments and long the A52 travelling east. The latter to include the effect of the latest approval in Brailsford and associated road conditions and the outline approval for homes at Ashbourne Airfield.

Travel Plan

1. A great deal of emphasis has been placed by the Highways Authority on the developer's promise of creating and delivering a meaningful Travel Plan. The Parish Council sees little or no evidence of those approved in relation to earlier developments being delivered or enforced. Therefore the deployment of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator can be seen to have little benefit if there are no measurable changes in behaviour and traffic movement on the ground as a result of their activity. In any consideration the Committee should advise that this is linked to financial penalty or local contribution.
2. Use of public transport by residents has been identified as low at 1.9% in Brailsford as compared to a Derbyshire average of 4.1%. While the local A52 bus service (The Swift) is currently running every 30 minutes this is a s a result of one-off funding from Government which will cease in 1st quarter 2026 – before this development is complete. Provision such as the Derbyshire Connect door-to-door shopping service is also likely to end in 2026 when Government funding is withdrawn, and local transport policy and provision moves to the EMCAA based in Nottingham. As above targets should be set for sustainable behavioural change and in particular a switch to the use of public transport with the developer should be asked to consider contributions for its maintenance and that of the Community Transport services which provide amenity for those residents unable to access the A52 route.

14 Cycling. As previously stated in our submission this is unlikely to prove popular/safe as travel to work will require the use of the A52 or Luke Lane. The 2021 census identifies this as only 1.4% of the modal share. Those familiar with the Parish and with Brailsford will know that functional cycling (and much leisure cycling) can only be undertaken with access by the A52. The volume of traffic, speed and number of HGVs are unlikely to make this either a safe or attractive activity. If this plan is to be considered as a serious contribution to the development and the mitigation of impact, then the developer should be required to fund a dedicated cycle lane along the A52 and produce a plan for the creation of a cycle path network with associated funding.

15 Bus Stops. The developer is proposing to improve some local bus stops to provide a more acceptable traveller experience. Those in question are sited close to the Luke Lane junction.

• At the westbound (located outside the Methodist Church) there is little room to make the improvements suggested and this stop already adds to the build-up of traffic waiting to turn into Luke Lane from the east
• The eastbound stop is already very close to the Luke Lane junction creating a safety hazard for:
  • Traffic at the junction waiting to turn
  • Those vehicles entering the village which will ultimately be gathering speed after the planned controlled crossing
  • Movements from the new approved retail outlets on the south side of the A52
  • Traffic exiting the Green where the GP surgery is located.

16 Pedestrians. The Committee should note that pedestrians, including any primary school children, will be required to walk along the estate road and children will need to cross Luke Lane to access the school. No specific provision is proposed. Members may be aware that a condition was imposed on the same developer for the construction of a footpath at the northern end from the Avant Estate at the western end of the village to Luke Lane to improve access to the Primary School. This has led to the creation of a narrow path (not as conditioned) giving access direct ontoLuke Lane (with no safety barrier). At this point Luke Lane has no footway and those accessing the school have to walk along the carriageway. Similarly, to date, improvements to pedestrian access at the southern end of the Avant estate and alongside the A52 into the main village do not seem to have not been completed/enforced.

Types of House

17 As set out in our earlier statement the applicant should be asked to take due consideration of the demographic of the residents of the Parish - the higher age bracket and the shortage of affordable homes for those younger people wishing to stay in the village. The Neighbourhood Plan identified a demand for specially adapted bungalows. These requirements have now been recognised by DDDC in the revisions to the Local Plan. Instead, the current proposal is for more larger 4-5 bedroomed family properties which bring improved profit margins for the developer. Local quotas of specialist housing should therefore be considered for this application.

1. In any consideration of this application the developer should be asked to ensure that all recognised climate change adaptation and mitigation measures, including solar panels are applied to the new properties.
2. Consideration must also be given to the construction of adequate garaging/off road parking for the 2-3 vehicles likely to be associated with this type of development. This requirement to improve safety and especially expedite the movement of emergency and standard service vehicles.

Conclusion

Overall, the Parish Council reaffirms its objection to this application and considers that there are a number of grounds for its refusal, not least that

• it sits in contradiction to the provisions of the current Local and approved Neighbourhood Plan and to the current government development priority areas
• its contribution to further over development of a village environment and one now considered to be an unsustainable location
• its negative impact on infrastructure and amenity and lack of consideration by the developer of a need to contribute to their improvement
• provision which does not meet local need/demand.

Our Council is also aware that despite the high level of objection, discussions are likely to be ongoing about the S106 investment requirement. We are disappointed therefore that to date the Planning Officers (or the developer) have had no contact with us about this or seemingly recognised any of the issues raised by us on behalf of local residents. This was also the case with the earlier (now approved) application for the estate south of Main Road in Brailsford. However investment in community asset was recognised in the approvals for the Avant Estate and this should have set a precedent.

Therefore, notwithstanding our ongoing formal objection and its strong rationale, we ask that the Planning Committee takes account of our suggestions for essential investment which were set out in our original submission and confirmed in the above.