Your letter to the planners
If you’ve written already but have further points you would like to make then write another letter. If there are two of you then we suggest you each send a letter as the numbers will probably be counted.
For starters include your name and full postal address (plus other contact details if you want). You could title it “Consultation Response to South Derbyshire Core Spatial Strategy Options”, and start with something like “I am writing to object to the potential development of green field sites in South Derbyshire on the edge of Mickleover”. If there are particular Mickleover development sites that concern you then make it clear which they are. You can find the identities of those in South Derbyshire from this map here. Send your letters/emails to South Derbyshire (or Amber Valley) and copy to Derby City; the email addresses and postal addresses are listed opposite.
For starters include your name and full postal address (plus other contact details if you want). You could title it “Consultation Response to South Derbyshire Core Spatial Strategy Options”, and start with something like “I am writing to object to the potential development of green field sites in South Derbyshire on the edge of Mickleover”. If there are particular Mickleover development sites that concern you then make it clear which they are. You can find the identities of those in South Derbyshire from this map here. Send your letters/emails to South Derbyshire (or Amber Valley) and copy to Derby City; the email addresses and postal addresses are listed opposite.
What to say
If you are wondering what to say in your letter for it have some effect then read on. We’re not experts and would welcome any feedback, so this section may change …
There is some advice from a professional planner who lives in Mickleover on the next web page here, but we’ve laid out a few ideas below on what you might consider covering in your letter. You will probably have further ideas of your own, so write what’s important to you in your own words.
The planning process is supposed to decide which sites get developed by considering which options best satisfy various planning policy objectives. What the existing residents want doesn’t figure very highly, so try to make your case relative to these objectives. It’s not as bad as it sounds.
If you want to locate further objectives relevant to this process there are some pointers to relevant documents at the bottom of this webpage.
There is some advice from a professional planner who lives in Mickleover on the next web page here, but we’ve laid out a few ideas below on what you might consider covering in your letter. You will probably have further ideas of your own, so write what’s important to you in your own words.
The planning process is supposed to decide which sites get developed by considering which options best satisfy various planning policy objectives. What the existing residents want doesn’t figure very highly, so try to make your case relative to these objectives. It’s not as bad as it sounds.
If you want to locate further objectives relevant to this process there are some pointers to relevant documents at the bottom of this webpage.
Topics
We’ve picked out a few policy objectives (blue headings below) mainly from the East Midlands Regional Plan, which we think development of sites on the edge of Mickleover would conflict with. Against each objective we’ve written some thoughts relative to the proposed Mickleover sites …
General Objective: Secure the delivery of sustainable development. Covers several objectives below (sustainability is the key theme in deciding the location of developments) -
Objective: Reduce congestion in the PUAs (eg: around Derby) and inter-urban corridors. Reduce traffic growth -
Local traffic congestion is already a problem and would become worse with more housing. At peak times the main commuter routes out of Mickleover are overloaded, including the Uttoxeter Road route into the city, the Station Road exit onto Radbourne Lane, the route north out of Mickleover via the A38 round the west side of Derby(*) and traffic on to the A5111 ring road east bound. Etwall Road in the village gets congested, in part because of queues for the limited parking. Ladybank Road has become something of a rat run at peak times. The promoter for Newhouse Farm (site S0078) is proposing access from Ladybank Road, but this would just create vastly more traffic and noise on what is supposed to be a residential road.
(*) Note: in 2007, through the Savills-Atkins report to Derby City and Derbyshire County Councils, the Highways Agency warned against further residential development on the west of Derby that would affect traffic flow through the A38 Derby west junctions (already operating above capacity) until the junction upgrades have been completed. These major upgrades are currently scheduled to start in 2015/16 and would take several years to complete (one can only speculate that the UK budget deficit may eventually delay this project further). You can find that report here and find the Highways Agency input, starting on page 3.
Objective: Reduce congestion in the PUAs (eg: around Derby) and inter-urban corridors. Reduce traffic growth -
Local traffic congestion is already a problem and would become worse with more housing. At peak times the main commuter routes out of Mickleover are overloaded, including the Uttoxeter Road route into the city, the Station Road exit onto Radbourne Lane, the route north out of Mickleover via the A38 round the west side of Derby(*) and traffic on to the A5111 ring road east bound. Etwall Road in the village gets congested, in part because of queues for the limited parking. Ladybank Road has become something of a rat run at peak times. The promoter for Newhouse Farm (site S0078) is proposing access from Ladybank Road, but this would just create vastly more traffic and noise on what is supposed to be a residential road.
(*) Note: in 2007, through the Savills-Atkins report to Derby City and Derbyshire County Councils, the Highways Agency warned against further residential development on the west of Derby that would affect traffic flow through the A38 Derby west junctions (already operating above capacity) until the junction upgrades have been completed. These major upgrades are currently scheduled to start in 2015/16 and would take several years to complete (one can only speculate that the UK budget deficit may eventually delay this project further). You can find that report here and find the Highways Agency input, starting on page 3.
Objective: Improve accessibility to jobs, where patterns of development should reduce the need to travel, especially by car -
Derby appears to identify significant employment development sites at Chaddesdon Sidings, Sinfin/Chellaston Business Park and around Raynesway, so it would appear to make more sense to develop housing sites around the south and east of the city rather on the western side, where the location would generate more commuter traffic.
Derby appears to identify significant employment development sites at Chaddesdon Sidings, Sinfin/Chellaston Business Park and around Raynesway, so it would appear to make more sense to develop housing sites around the south and east of the city rather on the western side, where the location would generate more commuter traffic.
Objective: Ensure location of development makes efficient use of new and existing infrastructure and helps reduce the need to travel -
Parking: With the growth in housing over the last 10 years village parking space has become overloaded so that people are more likely to drive elsewhere to shop (and there doesn’t appear to be any space in the village to expand this parking).
The Tesco supermarket is small (by Tesco standards), with limited parking, and it already struggles with the number of people. More housing would mean more people driving to Kingsway and further afield for their supermarket shopping.
Doctors’ surgeries: the existing practices would struggle to handle the number of extra patients who would appear and may not have space to expand.
Schools (Mickleover and John Port) – John Port secondary, with around 2100 pupils, is already the 4th largest secondary school in the UK; could it expand further? When the neighbourhood overview was compiled there was some capacity at Murray Park, but that would soon overload. There were shortfalls at some of Mickleover’s primary schools and space at others; but presumably at some point additional housing would overload them.
Note: it’s clearly feasible to create new doctors surgeries, build new schools or class rooms, so these are not show stoppers, but the requirement for someone to spend money needs to be recognised. Creating additional road capacity is a different ball game.
Parking: With the growth in housing over the last 10 years village parking space has become overloaded so that people are more likely to drive elsewhere to shop (and there doesn’t appear to be any space in the village to expand this parking).
The Tesco supermarket is small (by Tesco standards), with limited parking, and it already struggles with the number of people. More housing would mean more people driving to Kingsway and further afield for their supermarket shopping.
Doctors’ surgeries: the existing practices would struggle to handle the number of extra patients who would appear and may not have space to expand.
Schools (Mickleover and John Port) – John Port secondary, with around 2100 pupils, is already the 4th largest secondary school in the UK; could it expand further? When the neighbourhood overview was compiled there was some capacity at Murray Park, but that would soon overload. There were shortfalls at some of Mickleover’s primary schools and space at others; but presumably at some point additional housing would overload them.
Note: it’s clearly feasible to create new doctors surgeries, build new schools or class rooms, so these are not show stoppers, but the requirement for someone to spend money needs to be recognised. Creating additional road capacity is a different ball game.
Objective: Protect and enhance the natural and historic environment, the quality and character of the countryside, and of existing communities. Covers several objectives below …
Objectives: Conserve the countryside and high grade agricultural land, use previously developed land, and Manage and conserve the regions landscape, including landscapes of character -
Almost all of the potential sites around Mickleover are productive agricultural land; they are not brown field. It is an attractive landscape, more so than most of the city’s boundary (including some of the green belt land). Medieval ridge and furrow is still clearly visible on several fields at Newhouse Farm (site S0078). It’s been estimated that modern agriculture has already destroyed more than 94% of East Midlands ridge and furrow landscape, particularly over the last 20 years. It would be unfortunate to lose more of it to housing development.
Derby City Council lists a limited number of walks, and one of these is a circular walk from Mickleover through Radbourne, which crosses this landscape. The walk guide for this walk refers to these remnants of medieval ridge and furrow farming and to the excellent views to the west and northwest towards Potlocks farm.
Further, English Heritage identifies that development to the north and west of Mickleover would have adverse impacts on the landscape in an area of landscape sensitivity with respect to historic character, biodiversity, tranquillity and visual ‘intactness’. Development on S0078 and S0079 would presumably be visible from Radbourne Hall itself, a grade 1 listed building, and so would affect its landscape setting (the Hall is certainly visible from the sites). Potlocks farm, grade 2 listed, would also be affected, having views of S0078 and S0080.
Objectives: Conserve the countryside and high grade agricultural land, use previously developed land, and Manage and conserve the regions landscape, including landscapes of character -
Almost all of the potential sites around Mickleover are productive agricultural land; they are not brown field. It is an attractive landscape, more so than most of the city’s boundary (including some of the green belt land). Medieval ridge and furrow is still clearly visible on several fields at Newhouse Farm (site S0078). It’s been estimated that modern agriculture has already destroyed more than 94% of East Midlands ridge and furrow landscape, particularly over the last 20 years. It would be unfortunate to lose more of it to housing development.
Derby City Council lists a limited number of walks, and one of these is a circular walk from Mickleover through Radbourne, which crosses this landscape. The walk guide for this walk refers to these remnants of medieval ridge and furrow farming and to the excellent views to the west and northwest towards Potlocks farm.
Further, English Heritage identifies that development to the north and west of Mickleover would have adverse impacts on the landscape in an area of landscape sensitivity with respect to historic character, biodiversity, tranquillity and visual ‘intactness’. Development on S0078 and S0079 would presumably be visible from Radbourne Hall itself, a grade 1 listed building, and so would affect its landscape setting (the Hall is certainly visible from the sites). Potlocks farm, grade 2 listed, would also be affected, having views of S0078 and S0080.
Objective: Conserve or enhance the environment and regions biodiversity –
The local landscape has a good network of old hedgerows, mature field boundary trees and numerous copses. Site S0078, for example, has springs, pond and nearby stream, and is a varied wildlife habitat. In addition to the commoner birds and mammals, most days you will see sparrow hawk, buzzards and hear greater spotted woodpeckers and owls. Occasionally you will see foxes and hares, and badgers have been seen here.
The local landscape has a good network of old hedgerows, mature field boundary trees and numerous copses. Site S0078, for example, has springs, pond and nearby stream, and is a varied wildlife habitat. In addition to the commoner birds and mammals, most days you will see sparrow hawk, buzzards and hear greater spotted woodpeckers and owls. Occasionally you will see foxes and hares, and badgers have been seen here.
Objective: New development will not adversely impact on the character of existing communities, including the established suburbs (taken from Derby’s Core Strategy Options Paper “Spatial Vision”, but similar objectives exist in the Regional Plan) –
Despite the city having expanded over the years and swallowed up Mickleover village we still regard the old village as the community’s heart. In the western half of Mickleover residents live along a divide between the city and attractive old countryside where the boundary has been stable for nearly 40 years, and many in the community access that countryside using the public rights of way daily. That immediate countryside is a part of the character of the existing community, and people choose to live here for the relative peace and contact with the natural environment, in contrast to the urban buzz.
Despite the city having expanded over the years and swallowed up Mickleover village we still regard the old village as the community’s heart. In the western half of Mickleover residents live along a divide between the city and attractive old countryside where the boundary has been stable for nearly 40 years, and many in the community access that countryside using the public rights of way daily. That immediate countryside is a part of the character of the existing community, and people choose to live here for the relative peace and contact with the natural environment, in contrast to the urban buzz.
An objective from the South Derbyshire District Plan –
We believe that the South Derbyshire District Plan (1998) still applies (until it is superseded by the new plan). A key objective is to “channel (housing) demand away from sensitive locations such as … the urban fringe of Derby”, with the exceptions envisaged of the brown field Pastures hospital site development and developments around Stenson Fields as part of the “Sinfin Master Plan” (during the past decade there have been planning applications for further developments on Derby’s southern edge and subsequent to an enquiry which eventually reported in 2009 three of these now have planning: the 3 Derby PUA south sites shown in yellow on the Derby PUA map we believe). However, developing green field land around the edge of Mickleover appears something completely new which would be counter to the existing District Plan.
We believe that the South Derbyshire District Plan (1998) still applies (until it is superseded by the new plan). A key objective is to “channel (housing) demand away from sensitive locations such as … the urban fringe of Derby”, with the exceptions envisaged of the brown field Pastures hospital site development and developments around Stenson Fields as part of the “Sinfin Master Plan” (during the past decade there have been planning applications for further developments on Derby’s southern edge and subsequent to an enquiry which eventually reported in 2009 three of these now have planning: the 3 Derby PUA south sites shown in yellow on the Derby PUA map we believe). However, developing green field land around the edge of Mickleover appears something completely new which would be counter to the existing District Plan.
A final point we would make –
We feel that whatever green field land is earmarked for development outside the city boundary, that it should not be released for development until it is clear that City land and brown field sites won’t provide enough capacity for the housing need that actually materialises. The 21,400 dwellings was an 18-20 year forecast and could be hopelessly wrong.
We feel that whatever green field land is earmarked for development outside the city boundary, that it should not be released for development until it is clear that City land and brown field sites won’t provide enough capacity for the housing need that actually materialises. The 21,400 dwellings was an 18-20 year forecast and could be hopelessly wrong.
Pointers to Policy Documents
If you want to look at them the core strategies will attempt to satisfy policies in the East Midlands Regional Plan (here), national policy in the PPSs and PPGs (planning policy statements and guidance notes) (click here and here for links; PPS1 is a good start point) and maybe the current district plans (there are carried over policies from the 1998 South Derbyshire District Plan, click here and choose “Housing”). You might want to look at some observations in the Mickleover Neighbourhood Profile (click here and choose Mickleover).
