𝗗𝗘𝗖𝗜𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗗𝗘𝗟𝗔𝗬𝗘𝗗, 𝗪𝗛𝗘𝗘𝗟𝗗𝗢𝗡’𝗦 𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗘 𝗪𝗘𝗔𝗞𝗘𝗡𝗘𝗗, 𝗪𝗘 𝗙𝗜𝗚𝗛𝗧 𝗢𝗡

Over recent months, SKHGB has done everything reasonably possible to press for a timely determination of planning application AVA/2025/0587.

We have engaged extensively with local councillors, senior planning officers and Council leadership, including direct correspondence with the Chief Executive and Deputy Leader of the council. We have commissioned and submitted substantial independent professional advice, raised significant policy, transport and sustainability concerns, and secured support from our local MP.

𝗗𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹’𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗱𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗳𝘂𝗿𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗺𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹.

Our position remains unchanged. This application is fundamentally contrary to the adopted development plan. 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, continuing to allow extended time for additional submissions does not alter the central planning position. 𝗙𝘂𝗿𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 𝘂𝗽𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗻𝗼𝗻-𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀, including conflict with Green Belt policy, conflict with the adopted Local Plan, and the continuing absence of demonstrated Very Special Circumstances sufficient to outweigh the identified harm.

𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗮 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗲𝗻𝘃𝗶𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝘃𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗷𝗼𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗮𝗹𝘀.

The Council has cancelled Planning Board meetings in consecutive months while this application remains unresolved. Meanwhile, Wheeldon continues to enjoy an effectively open-ended process.

𝗪𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 - 𝗦𝗞𝗛𝗚𝗕 𝗜𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗚𝗜𝗩𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗨𝗣.

However, we do feel that we have presently reached an impasse. We have pursued every realistic avenue available to seek timely determination of this application and to ensure the planning issues are properly understood and publicly scrutinised.

Residents have already shown exceptional support throughout this process. We are satisfied that the key planning, policy and technical issues have now been clearly placed before, and understood by, Amber Valley Borough Council, and we are therefore not presently asking residents to undertake further correspondence campaigns.

Over the last eight months, we have submitted a substantial body of public-facing evidence and technical material into the planning record. That material will remain on the record and fully available to any Planning Inspector, should a Planning Inspector become involved.

𝗔𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵, 𝘄𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝗩𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝘆 𝗕𝗼𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗱𝗼𝗽𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘁; 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.

Until something materially changes, or new developments arise, there is realistically little more we can presently do beyond closely monitoring the situation and responding where relevant. We will, of course, continue to search for every further opportunity and piece of evidence that may assist in strengthening the case for refusal.

𝗪𝗛𝗘𝗘𝗟𝗗𝗢𝗡’𝗦 𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗘 𝗛𝗔𝗦 𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗜𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗪𝗘𝗔𝗞𝗘𝗡𝗘𝗗

Looking at the positives, Wheeldon’s case has materially weakened over recent months.

Many of Wheeldon’s earlier core arguments have either been significantly diluted or abandoned altogether. The “grey belt” narrative, which previously formed a central pillar of Wheeldon’s case, has now disappeared from the latest submission. At the same time, Wheeldon now acknowledges that the proposal conflicts with the newly adopted Amber Valley Local Plan, that the site remains within the Green Belt, and that the development constitutes inappropriate development in planning terms.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗳𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝘁𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗼𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 - 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝘀𝗽𝗶𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗶𝗴𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 - 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗽𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗩𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗶𝗿𝗰𝘂𝗺𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀.

In our view, this represents a materially weakened development case and a clear acknowledgement of the substantial policy failures that must result in the refusal of this application.

We would welcome any constructive feedback.

𝗪𝗘 𝗙𝗜𝗚𝗛𝗧 𝗢𝗡!