𝐒𝐊𝐇𝐆𝐁 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐌𝐈𝐓𝐓𝐄𝐄 𝐔𝐏𝐃𝐀𝐓𝐄

1. 𝐀𝐕𝐁𝐂 - 𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐈𝐒𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐃𝐄𝐋𝐀𝐘
We have now escalated this matter, writing to the Chief Executive and Deputy Leader at Amber Valley Borough Council to call for a decision without further delay. (The Deputy Leader is responsible for planning.)

The position is clear. The Council can determine the application now: the Local Plan is adopted, the site remains Green Belt and unallocated, and there are already sufficient grounds for refusal.

Remaining key issues that the council cites - particularly the Transport Assessment - are irrelevant. There are already clear grounds for the application to be rejected.

This is not a finely balanced case. It is inappropriate Green Belt development, no Very Special Circumstances have been demonstrated, and there are ongoing concerns around highways, drainage, environmental impact and harm to landscape and settlement separation. The borough also has a strong housing land supply, so this site is not needed.

𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬, 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐧𝐨𝐰, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐟𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐧-𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲. 𝐅𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐤𝐬 𝐟𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲, 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧-𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧-𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬.

2. 𝐄𝐗𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐑𝐓 𝐍𝐄𝐓𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊 𝐔𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐑 𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐈𝐍
You may have seen the article on Derbyshire Live this week about traffic conditions around Kilburn Primary School - see link in comments.

The report highlights what many residents already experience daily - congestion, unsafe parking, and mounting pressure on a road network that is already struggling at peak times. As described, the school run has been compared to a “Formula 1 pit-lane”, with incidents, near misses and disruption becoming a regular occurrence.

We felt it was important to respond to this article, because it goes directly to the heart of one of our core concerns. This is the reality on the ground today - before any new development.

The proposed development would introduce around 200 new homes, which in practical terms means thousands of additional vehicle movements every day. Even on conservative assumptions, that is likely to translate into some 400 extra cars using the same constrained local roads.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐤𝐞𝐲 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞: 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐧𝐨𝐰, 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐞𝐝?

This is not a theoretical concern. It is exactly why the applicant’s Transport Assessment has been challenged, the Highway Authority has raised serious concerns, and fundamental questions about safety and capacity remain unresolved.

The planning system requires developments to demonstrate safe and suitable access and to ensure that impacts on the highway network are not severe. Based on what we are already seeing locally, that bar is clearly not being met.

This article doesn’t tell us anything new - but it does publicly confirm what residents have been saying for months. The existing situation is already stretched. Adding a development of this scale risks pushing it beyond breaking point.

If you haven’t already, please take a moment to read the article and consider what it means for Kilburn and Horsley.

3. 𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐓𝐄𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐓𝐄𝐒𝐓
You may have seen discussion about how groups like ours are described. We want to be clear.

𝐖𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩. 𝐖𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩.

That distinction matters.

We are not opposing development for the sake of it. We are protecting something that already exists and is recognised in policy - our Green Belt, our countryside, and the separation between Kilburn and Horsley.

This is about ensuring development happens in the right places, in line with the adopted Local Plan, and without causing permanent harm.

This land is not “spare”. It is protected because:
• it prevents coalescence
• it preserves openness
• it defines the character of our area

In planning terms, the applicant accepts this is inappropriate Green Belt development. That means it should only proceed if very special circumstances are proven. They have not been. Our role is not to protest the system, but to ensure policy is properly applied.

We are standing up for:
• the integrity of the adopted Local Plan
• the proper application of Green Belt policy
• the safety and capacity of local infrastructure
• the long-term interests of this community

𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

4. 𝐀 𝐂𝐀𝐔𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐀𝐑𝐘 𝐓𝐀𝐋𝐄 𝐅𝐑𝐎𝐌 𝐂𝐋𝐎𝐒𝐄𝐑 𝐓𝐎 𝐇𝐎𝐌𝐄
You may have seen recent reporting about the Bittern View development in Willington, South Derbyshire, where residents moved into “dream homes” only to face years of unfinished roads, poor infrastructure and ongoing disruption. In some cases, problems have been compounded by developer failure and a lack of clear accountability.

This is not an isolated issue. Bittern View has become a recognised example of what can go wrong when development is approved without ensuring that infrastructure is fully deliverable, properly secured and completed in step with occupation.

The pattern is familiar: homes are built and occupied, but roads, drainage and public spaces lag behind, leaving residents dealing with the consequences for years. Once permission is granted, leverage is reduced and the risk shifts away from the developer and onto the community. That is why the planning stage matters.

In Kilburn and Horsley, key issues - particularly around transport and infrastructure - remain unresolved, and elements of the proposal are still conditional. Approving development in those circumstances does not remove uncertainty, it locks it in.

We are often told these matters can be dealt with later. Experience at places like Bittern View shows that “later” is often where problems begin.

This is not just about whether development happens, but whether it is properly planned, deliverable and in the right place. 𝐁𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐧𝐭.