On Monday 22 February, Amber Valley Planning Board failed to adopt the proposed Development Brief for the Meadows Edge site. This may have been due to the call for a judicial review on the consultation process which we understand has been made by Friends of the Earth lawyers. Civic Forum committee member Stephen Heathcote pointed out at the meeting that although the Council had listed representations made on the Brief document at its various stages so far, they had failed to provide the legally necessary statement explaining how the Brief was shaped and who had been consulted. This point has been the subject of freedom of information requests trying to unearth who has influenced the Brief in its earliest form.
Belper News is reporting that five of the seven councillors present (eight were absent) said that they were in agreement with the Brief, Council leader Stuart Bradford saying ‘I feel content with this Brief – this site can be controlled in the future through the planning process’. However, Cllr Barry Lewis (not a Planning Board member) was concerned about references to a relief road implying the need for a development of large proportions (big enough to pay for the road), and Cllr Bob Moon was concerned about the lack of links between the town centre and the site of the superstore suggested by Tesco, the inappropriateness of corporate design styles in the World Heritage Site, and the need for high class, sustainable design. These are all points which echo representations made before by the Civic Forum - in addition, Forum Chair Janet Honey made the point that the Brief document made too many assumptions that the site, supposed to be ‘mixed use’, would be led by a single, large scale retail development. In one concession, apparently to English Heritage concerns, the Borough Council made a last minute modification to the document, deleting the reference to any new building possibly being the size of the East Mill, and encouraging a ‘smaller’ development, although this still lacks critical detail and the wording is ambiguous.
Our understanding now is that the Brief documents will go out in virtually the same form they were circulated in January (with the revised reference to scale), presumably with the previously missing statement required under Local Development Regulations 17 (1) (b). They could be subject to a minimum four week consultation period and return for adoption in early April. This means that all previous representations made by individuals and organisations will have to be re-submitted to be counted. The Council’s Chief Executive is quoted as saying said of the document ‘We anticipate any representations will be similar to those we’ve already had, so it can be brought back before the Planning Board as it is now at a later date’ In other words, the consultation is planned as a technical exercise only, to meet legal obligations – this is not likely to be viewed in a favourable light by a future planning inspector.
Cllr Alan Cox was particularly exercised by delays, seeking confirmation from Head of Planning Derek Stafford that if a planning application was submitted for the ER1C site now, the Council would be not be able to consider the application because the ER1C policy requires a brief to have been adopted first. If they deferred a decision on the application, the developer would appeal against non-determination, triggering a decision by a government Planning Inspector rather than the Council. This is an interesting argument, given that any application on the scale envisaged for this site would almost certainly be ‘called in’ for a Public Inquiry under an Inspector anyway for two reasons: firstly the impact on the World Heritage Site, and secondly the impact of a major retail development on market towns in neighbouring local authority areas. The development brief will be used by the Planning Inspector to assess the application, which is why it is so important to get it right.