Joy –and dismay – over homes plans for green belt land
CAMPAIGNERS rallying against housing plans for protected green belt land in Derbyshire have both celebrated and lashed out as the council makes changes.
Later this week, Erewash Borough Council will debate major changes to its plans for earmarked housing sites on protected green belt land.
It has revealed that one controversial site, in Lock Lane, Sawley, has been dropped from consideration – to the joy of campaigners, who represented nearly 20 per cent of objections.
However, a campaign group against housing in Cotmanhay Wood and a scheme south of Kirk Hallam has claimed the authority is “undemocratic” and “out of touch” after those proposals are set to remain in place.
Objections to the Cotmanhay site represented 80 per cent of opposition to the housing blueprint.
Cllr Alan Chewings, chair of Sawley Parish Council, had been a key part of the opposition to 300 homes in Lock Lane, Sawley, close to a nature reserve.
The Lock Lane site is to be axed due to issues with a nearby railway level crossing, which often leaves the area cut off – an issue council officers do not wish to worsen.
Cllr Chewings said: “Residents of Sawley have cause to celebrate because we have come together to defeat the plans to develop the small golf course north of Lock Lane.
“The houses would have spoiled the popular walks to Trent Lock, along both Lock Lane and the Erewash Canal. Furthermore, the Derbyshire Wildlife Trust nature reserve off Lock Lane would have been cut off from open countryside.
“The Wildlife Trust and Sawley Parish Council worked together to campaign against the cuts. Three thousand people signed a petition against the proposal and more than 100 people objected by completing the formal consultation questionnaire.
“This goes to show that local people stepping up and having their say can and does make a difference.
“It will be another 10 years before removing land from the green belt can be considered again. Well done, Sawley.” In another proposal, a 600-home scheme, encircling Cotmanhay Wood, had been envisaged.
A large chunk of this is now set to be dropped after one of the landowners backed out. However, a planned smaller portion of the Cotmanhay site – to
Alex Breene the east of the wood – will continue, despite heavy objections from local campaigners.
On top of this, a proposed green belt development in Kirk Hallam, with a new relief road, will be extended further to offset the homes to be lost at the Cotmanhay site. It, too, had included 600 homes initially.
A potential development would now stretch from the A6096 bordering the village round to Sowbrook Lane, encircling the Pioneer Meadows Nature Reserve.
Alex Breene, chair of the Save Cotmanhay and Shipley Green Belt Group, said: “This is now a battle for local democracy and the welfare of Ilkeston. The council are focusing 90 per cent of the borough’s delivery plan for new housing solely in the Ilkeston area.
“Simply put, there is no equitable distribution of new housing developments in Erewash. The result is even more pressure added
The Cotmanhay Wood site has been scaled back, though there are still plans for homes to the east of the wood
The proposed 300-home site at Lock Lane, Sawley to the Ilkeston area; its schools, hospital, policing and roads.
“More troubling still is the council’s total disregard for local democracy. Why launch a consultation to then ignore 80 per cent of respondents? What does this say about the council’s view of the residents it claims to represent?
“This raises serious questions and we should all be deeply concerned by the council’s latest actions.”
In response, Cllr Michael Powell, Erewash Borough Council’s lead member for regeneration and planning, said: “The reality is that we have to meet the housing needs for the residents of our borough, initially over the next five years, and then the next, nearly two decades.
“This process is vital in meeting the targets the Government has set and we thank everyone for giving us their views so far.
“We have listened to comments, reviewed them in detail and made changes as we move forward.
“A second round of consultation, if agreed, would be so important to ensure that we can start to see much-needed house building in our borough.”
The council has a target, given to it by central government, find slots for 6,680 homes by 2037 - 393 a year.
Why launch a consultation to then ignore 80 per cent of respondents?