𝐒𝐊𝐇𝐆𝐁 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐌𝐈𝐓𝐓𝐄𝐄 𝐔𝐏𝐃𝐀𝐓𝐄

1. 𝗔𝗩𝗕𝗖 - 𝗗𝗘𝗖𝗜𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗗𝗘𝗟𝗔𝗬

Following our letter to the Chief Executive and Deputy Leader of Amber Valley Borough Council, we have now received a response. The Council says the application cannot yet go to committee because there are still outstanding matters relating to transport and ecology which the applicant must be allowed to address.

𝗢𝘂𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗻𝗼𝗻-𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘁.

This application is already 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀. The site remains protected Green Belt, is not allocated for development, and the proposal constitutes inappropriate development for which no Very Special Circumstances have been demonstrated.

𝗜𝗻 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄, 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗳𝘂𝗿𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀.

We are concerned that continued delay risks pushing determination into a more developer-friendly national policy environment, rather than allowing the application to be assessed promptly against the current adopted framework. Residents are entitled to expect a process that is transparent, timely and genuinely plan-led.

It is further noted that the 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗵𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗵 𝗿𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴.

We do have a couple of other matters progressing behind the scenes, which we hope to provide an update on very soon.

2. 𝗡𝗘𝗪 𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗙𝗥𝗢𝗠 𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗦𝗘𝗬 𝗙𝗔𝗥𝗡𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗧𝗛 𝗠𝗣

We’re pleased to report that, following contact from SKHGB, our local MP, Linsey Farnsworth, has now written to Amber Valley Borough Council’s planning leadership regarding this application.

Her office has confirmed that she raised concerns about the 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗯𝘆 𝗻𝗼𝘄. She also emphasised that national protections for the Green Belt must be properly applied when the application is determined.

3. 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗬 𝗢𝗙 𝗦𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝟭𝟬𝟲

A current example from Clowne in Derbyshire shows why communities should be cautious about relying on Section 106 promises.

The proposed Clowne Garden Village scheme - a major 1,800-home development on greenfield land - included millions of pounds in promised contributions. But part of the funding for SEND provision was deferred depending on the scheme’s future “viability”.

That matters because once planning permission is granted, promised benefits can later be delayed, reduced or renegotiated away. This often includes 𝗿𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘃𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲.

For communities, the risk is obvious - the development and loss of countryside happen first, while some of the promised mitigation may never fully materialise.

Planning decisions should be based on adopted policy and clear evidence - not assumptions about benefits that may change later. 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗕𝗲𝗹𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗺 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀.

4. 𝗣𝗨𝗕𝗟𝗜𝗖 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗧𝗢 𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗙𝗙𝗜𝗖 𝗜𝗦𝗦𝗨𝗘𝗦

The public reaction to recent traffic coverage in Kilburn has been resounding - 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗴𝗴𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗻𝗼𝘄.

Across both the Derbyshire Live article and the associated Facebook discussion, there is overwhelming agreement:

• congestion
• dangerous driving
• school-run chaos
• near misses

And the question being asked again and again is simple - 𝗶𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘄, 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝟮𝟬𝟬 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗱𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝘀?

This is why transport remains such a major issue in this application. It is not a hypothetical future concern. Residents are saying the problem already exists.