Please find below the objection that Repton Parish Council has sent to Turley who are working on behalf of Hallam Land also South Derbyshire District Council planning department.
The Repton Parish Council would object to the proposed Development on Land South West of Mount Pleasant Road on the following grounds –
HOUSING
The Repton and Milton Neighbourhood Development Plan Policy (NDP) H1 states –
6.1.2 POLICY H1: THE LIMITS OF DEVELOPMENT: The limits of development, which define the settlement boundary for the villages of Repton and Milton, will be maintained as identified on the proposals maps for each village, as shown below. Housing development outside of the settlement boundary will only be permitted if it is solely or primarily for affordable housing, of a scale and design appropriate to its context and generally in conformity with South Derbyshire Local Plan Policy BNE5.
The proposed development does not meet NDP Policy H1 and forms grounds for objection.
The South Derbyshire District Council Pre Submission Local Plan Part 1 has a revised policy H1. The wording of most relevance in Policy H1 is:
For the above two tiers [includes Repton], development of all sizes within the settlement boundaries will be considered appropriate and sites adjoining settlement boundaries as rural exception sites in accordance with Policy H21 as long as not greater than 25 dwellings.
H21 states:
Rural exception sites, where development is kept in perpetuity as affordable housing, will be permitted adjoining settlements with boundaries defined in the Local Plan, other than Swadlincote, Derby and Burton. The number of dwellings to be provided should be in accordance with Policy H1. Due to the need for affordable housing, all homes delivered within rural exception sites are required to meet the definition of Affordable Housing as set out in the NPPF.
Rural exception sites will only be permitted where:
- the homes meet a clearly identified local need arising from the adjoining settlement;
- the need cannot reasonably be met within the settlement boundary;
- A range of services and facilities are conveniently accessible from the site by means other than private car and
- The development is proportionate in scale to the existing settlement and is compliant with all other relevant policies in the Local Plan.
The proposed development does not meet the requirements of the SDDC Pre Submission Local Plan Part 1 Policy H21 and forms additional grounds for objection.
AREAS OF CONCERN
The Parish Council would be interested in how the developer intends to address the following concerns –
Flooding and Sewerage –
Flooding is a major concern and, following recent floods, the village has set up a Community Flood Warden Scheme and a installed a stage monitor and alarm in the Repton Brook to handle road closures and parishioners’ safety. The proposal refers to SuDS (Sustainable urban Drainage Systems) to manage the runoff from the site, including permeable pavements and green spaces to absorb rainfall, and retention/detention basins to hold back runoff from other hard surfaces. Any development that may contribute additional runoff to the Repton Brook during high flows is unacceptable and we require detailed assessment by the Environment Agency.
The village has a continuing problem with the current sewerage arrangement which, given the the age and condition of the sewers and increasing number of users in the village, has been of concern to the parishioners and also the sewerage utility, due to the number of repairs required and their capacity. We would require all the roof drainage from any development should go to soakaways and not into the sewer network, so as to not exacerbate any existing sewer flooding. Severn Trent will have to comment on these concerns based on their understanding of the sewer network.
Traffic –
The Repton Parish Council notes the proposal does not give a figure for the number of parking spaces on the site (though a figure of greater than 150 would be expected) and hence it is difficult to comment on the traffic statements in the proposal other than they surprise us. Repton does not have any significant employment opportunities planned and hence any residents on the development would be required to travel to their place of work. Travel by cycle is limited by the lack of cycle routes and the narrow roads and level of traffic on the routes out of the village. Given the limited bus service available then these journeys would be almost all by car.
The amount of traffic through Repton (and Willington) currently causes significant hold ups and delays particularly at rush hour, affecting access to the A38 and A50 Trunk Roads Any problems, roadworks or flooding are exacerbated by the nearest alternative River Trent crossings being in Burton on Trent and Swarkstone Bridge (which is an ancient monument and has only limited capacity).
The Square in Repton is a known problem junction and the egress from Pinfold Lane has limited visibility particularly down Main Street. Pinfold Lane itself is of limited capacity and the situation is worsened by the terrace houses on the Lane not having off street parking available to them.
The Mount Pleasant Road to Milton is a single track lane with no passing places with potholes and deep gullies each side making passing difficult. This situation makes it unsuitable for normal levels of vehicular usage and should not be used in assessing traffic flows.
Given the above we would expect the developer’s traffic statement would clearly show the assumptions used and basis of the assessment in order to make any reasonable comments on the assessment.
Green Wedge and Mill Hill –
We would object to the loss of an important open ‘Green Wedge’ in the village providing a major addition to the green spaces defined in the village and provides a nature conservation pathway through the village.
Mill Hill is currently a small hamlet separate from Repton with its own character. The proposed development would effectively subsume Mill Hill into the village destroying its character. We would object to this situation arising.
Inaccuracies on the Developers Proposal Statements
We object to the developer making the following misleading or incorrect statements in their proposal –
The proposal incorrectly states that there is a bank in the village.
Medical Centre – Repton does not have a Medical Centre. It has the Repton Health Centre that serves as an administrative centre for NHS teams and provides little or none of the comprehensive health care the community requires. The local surgery and pharmacy are both in Willington requiring either a bus or more likely a car journey.
The map in the proposal is incorrect in that the only Public Bus Service bus stops are on Burton Road and at the Cross (as they correctly state in their wording). The service is planned to run every hour in the timetabled period but does not provide a 24 hour service nor gives direct access to the hospitals in Derby or Burton.
It is difficult to understand how two local shops and a small Post Office can qualify as a range of shops.
We also object to the leading question in the ‘Have your say’ section of the proposal that asked if the respondent was in favour of more housing. The definition of housing requirements is a function for SDDC. Furthermore, the allocation of sites, across the district to meet this requirement, is also an SDDC function within the Local and any Neighbourhood Plans. For the developer to use the argument that because people want more housing that this site is required, misrepresents the planning process.
We are surprised at the following statement include in their proposal –
Alongside urban areas like Swadlincote and the peripheries of Derby and Burton-upon-Trent, Repton is a focus area for growth.
We do not understand the basis for this comment.