A public inquiry’s been told that plans for over a hundred homes in a Derbyshire town could destroy its character and farmland
A government inspector will now decide what happens next
Plans for more than 100 homes would “destroy” the character of two historic Derbyshire villages and replace them with “urban sprawl”, a public inquiry has been told.
Today (Tuesday, November 11) saw a public inquiry, overseen by a Government planning inspector, opened into plans for 135 homes in Kings Newton Lane, Melbourne.
Land agent Richborough Estates filed an appeal against South Derbyshire District Council on the grounds of “non-determination” after its councillors had not made a decision on the scheme within 13 weeks.
So that the appeal had a stance from the council, despite the appeal having already been filed, officers refused the plans due to its location outside the settlement boundary, that the council could already show enough homes were planned in the district, negative impact on historic buildings, loss of high quality agricultural land and due to it being “inappropriate” in a rural area.
Meanwhile, more than 100 objection letters had been submitted by opposing residents, along with opposition from Melbourne Parish Council, the Kings Newton Residents’ Association and Derbyshire CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England).
Gareth Jones, the Government inspector overseeing the inquiry, opened the hearings at the district council’s Swadlincote headquarters for a process which is scheduled to last up to six days, concluding on Friday, November 21.
Thea Osmund-Smith, legal representative for Richborough, told the inquiry there were “many tangible and real benefits” to the scheme which would outweigh any perceived negatives.
This included 40 affordable homes – the equivalent of 30 per cent of the total scheme – a children’s play area, orchard and managed green space.
She argued there would be “limited impact” on the mediaeval settlements of Melbourne and Kings Newton, partly because new homes had already been built nearby.
Ms Osmund-Smith claimed the council had already allocated housing in the district on best and most versatile agricultural land so had no issue with that precedent.
She said the contribution of the site to the wider landscape and countryside was “negligible” and had only been used for grazing since the 80s.
Ms Osmund-Smith said the council could not show it had a five-year land supply due to its shared burden of taking on part of Derby’s unmet housing need, through an agreement with the city and Amber Valley.
As a result, she claimed there was a shortfall in housing land which needed to be filled, particularly with a shortfall in affordable homes.
She said 291 households on the housing waiting list had listed Melbourne as their preferred area and that of the 13 affordable homes built there in the last year, there were 16-25 bids per property, demonstrating high interest.
Richard Humphreys, legal representative for the district council, said the 135-home plans far exceeded any allocation of new homes for the Melbourne area, with no future “strategic allocation” (large site) earmarked.
He said the parish had already catered for “significant” development, with the 47 homes earmarked the 2017 Local Plan – a document which sets out where housing can and cannot be developed – already built.
Mr Humphreys said the district’s housing need would not be affected as much as the developer made out by its share of Derby’s unmet homes, saying it had still earmarked enough future new homes without the Melbourne site.
He claimed the scheme did not meet biodiversity legislation for green space and animal habitats on the site and that the developer was trying to meet this obligation by buying a plot in North West Leicestershire instead.
Mr Humphreys said the project would sit at odds with the area’s historic links to market garden flower and vegetable growing.
He said the site was host to the highest grade of agricultural land – grade one, which was very rare.
Margaret Hagues, Kings Newton Residents Association secretary, said the scheme would have an “irreversible impact” on the historic setting and separation between Melbourne and Kings Newton.
She said the development would lead to the two “coalescing into an urban settlement”.
Ms Hagus said the scheme would be “isolated” with residents being “car dependent”.
John Jackson, a member of the residents association, said part of the land was still used for growing cabbages.
He too said the development could lead to “excessive unplanned urban sprawl” and that the surrounding area would be the “next targets” for housing.
Mr Jackson said the separate historic characters of Melbourne and Kings Newton would be “lost and spoiled” and the landscape appreciation “destroyed”.
He pointed to existing significant traffic issues in the market town and on the nearby ancient Swarkestone Causeway crossing to Derby which was often at a standstill due to congestion, posing issues for emergency services.
Michael King, a Melbourne Civic Association trustee, said only three per cent of agricultural land in the UK was grade one and none is officially recorded in Derbyshire, making this plot in need of protection.
The land was required for growing cereal crops to feed the country, he said, referring to radishes which could be grown there instead of being sourced from Senegal by supermarkets, and flowers grown commercially around Melbourne instead of from Kenya.
He said: “Housing targets should not always trump land value.”
Margaret Gildea, a Melbourne resident, said the town was “not anti-development, just development outside our settlement boundaries”, saying residents supported new homes on brownfield land and within its boundaries, in numbers which its infrastructure could take.
Fellow Melbourne resident Frank Hughes said there had been “considerable and disproportionate pressure” on the town for new housing, with significant increases in both new homes and number of households in recent years.
He said the 135-home scheme would be the “biggest single development in our villages” and would “steamroller over” the wishes of the community.
Cllr Amy Wheelton, district and county councillor, claimed 52 per cent of the site is grade one agricultural land and 45 per cent is grade two, both of which were in short supply and were needed for growing food.
She said this includes products like crisping potatoes for Walkers which cannot be grown in many places.
This reason was sufficient enough on its own to reject the scheme, she claimed.
Cllr Wheelton said, if approved, this scheme would create a precedent and “open season for developers in South Derbyshire”.