A huge expanse of land west of Mackworth towards Kirk Langley is set to be earmarked for 2,000 houses in Amber Valley Borough Council's Local Plan(Image: Derby Telegraph)

Council could seize land for 2,000 homes on Derby outskirts after owners pull out

by · Derbyshire Live

A Derbyshire council is considering seizing acres of farming land to build 2,000 houses on the edge of Derby after the owners pulled out. During a public hearing today (December 11) into Amber Valley Borough Council’s Local Plan, a blueprint for future development up to 2039, Government inspectors Anne Jordan and Alison Partington were told of serious concerns over plans for a 2,000 h ome site in Brun Lane, Mackworth.

The site, if adopted, would be the single largest allocated plot in the whole plan, which seeks land for 6,564 homes with a further 1,320 homes to meet Derby’s unmet housing need of 8,648. It would be linked to the A52, include a new link road, secondary school and primary school, and directly adjoin new housing in Radbourne Lane.

However, the landowners of the agricultural land to be used for the 2,000 home plan have said they will not sell, and have instead, as a compromise, put forward a much smaller chunk of their land for up to 600 homes. A raft of developers speaking at the hearing put it to the inspectors, and Amber Valley, that the land not being available for 2,000 homes should see that allocation dubbed “unsound” and that it also makes the entire plan “unsound”.

One developer called for the whole process to be paused to have a Green Belt land review to find alternative land to put houses, in lieu of the “fatally flawed” Mackworth site. Peter Canavan, on behalf of landowners the Mackworth Trust, said the owners were contacted in August and claimed that was the first time they had been made aware of the impending allocation of their land for 2,000 homes.

He said: “They say it is not available for development and since then we have had a back and forth with the council which has led us to come back with a smaller portion of the site.” Amber Valley’s representative in the hearings, Matthew Bowers, said the council “wishes to proceed with the allocation of 2,000, of which 1,320 would be within the plan period, not the smaller site which we haven’t assessed”.

The site for the potential new 2,000 homes is shown in red. The blue outline shows the area already approved for 600 homes off Radbourne Lane, Mackworth.(Image: Google)

Asked how they can be sure the council can deliver it, if the owners will not sell it, Mr Bowers said: “This is a sustainable location and would make a significant contribution to meet the housing needs and we will work closely with the landowners to pursue that further. Clearly there has been a change in position. We are keen to avoid piecemeal development of this site and the council is willing to use its powers of compulsory purchase to bring forward that site.”

Mr Canavan said there had been no “change in position” and said the compulsory purchase process was “not necessary”. Steffan Saunders, head of planning at South Derbyshire District Council, said: “It isn’t a bad site because the landowner isn’t supportive of its full deliverability, it is still sustainable.

Initial plans showing the scale of the new 2,000-home development in Derby, if it goes ahead(Image: Amber Valley Borough Council)

“It is entirely right to retain the allocation of the site, which has involved a whole suite of independent investigations. The process will comfortably allow time for the compulsory purchase order (CPO) process and it may not be necessary.”

Clare Clarke, on behalf of Harworth Group, said: “An unwilling landowner is a good reason not to take a site forward. It is quite a big issue in terms of deliverability, the wider site is needed for the associated infrastructure, the junction on the A52, there are question marks around that smaller site.

“The council is talking about CPO but there are financial implications to consider about how a council will be able to afford that. It needs to be taken out of the plan and maybe considered in a future plan and it leads to a need for other land at other sites to replace it.”

Patrick McGinnis of Coach Road Developments said: “The assumption in the allocation is fatally flawed. There is a tsunami of very strong revolt at the attempted adjustment of this allocation (from 2,000 to potentially 600 homes).

The proposed site of up to 2,000 homes in Brun Lane, Mackworth, 1,200 could be built by 2039(Image: Amber Valley Borough Council)

“This is a new allocation not an adjustment, it has not been assessed. It is unsafe and unsound to proceed on this basis. Does the council have the financial capability or time for a CPO? We find it an oddity that this site is still being pursued.”

Mike Downes, on behalf of Omnivale Pension Fund, said the proposed start on site to get 1,320 homes built by 2039 was 2029, which he claimed was insufficient time for a CPO process to be resolved, planning permission achieved and the land sold to a housebuilder.

Mr Saunders said the timeline was “cautious” and left enough time for the CPO to be processed. Mr Bowers, for the borough council, said: “The CPO is a last resort. It is a backstop and we will work with the landowners who have said they will support some development on the site.

“If the last resort is required it will be made clear we will do that. The council has used its CPO powers before on South Wingfield Station and was to use it on Heanor Grammar School. It can be costly but these costs can be recouped through the eventual sale of the site or we may be able to reach an agreement with a developer to underwrite the costs. It is an unusual situation but it has been done before.”

Ms Jordan said: “You want me to proceed on the basis that the plan will fail without the use of a CPO? It is the council’s hope that at some point they will change their mind.

“You can’t in all honesty expect me to proceed with the site on the basis that the developer will change their mind. The council will have to be successful to CPO the land. The council will have to prove to me that there are no other valid alternatives in the district, I would effectively need to go through the CPO process.”

Daniel Connolly, also on behalf of Coach Road Developments, said: “The same thing happened six years ago with Cinderhill and the process was paused for a Green Belt land review. The same should happen again, we should pause the exam, have a Green Belt land review and a further Regulation 19 (public consultation).” Mr Saunders said: “This is the only option available to Amber Valley as an urban extension to Derby.”

Andrew Johnston, for Amber Valley, said the public interest argument that the site would provide a much-needed new secondary school would be a compelling argument during a CPO debate.

Ms Clarke said Harworth had sites in the Green Belt either side of the A38 for “thousands of homes” which could be used if there was a Green Belt release. Ms Jones said there was "significant work for the council to do” and would consider next steps.

Cllr Chris Emmas-Williams, council leader, told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: “If we have to we will CPO it. If that is the only option we will do it. We are confident this will not be a problem (to the plan). We have done it before and we will do it again.

“We can build the first bit (600 houses) while we CPO the other half.”

Asked about the risk to the plan being dubbed “unsound”, he said: “I don’t know why it should be stalled. The site has been around since 2018 and the owners have never objected before. It is a real shot out of the blue. We have talked about this for almost seven years.”

We send out the biggest stories in an email every day. Sign up for the main Derbyshire Live newsletter here.