A reminder of the meeting in the Strutt Centre.

The meeting is a chance for bus passengers to meet bus providers and councillors to discuss the current situation where buses are cancelled and many routes downgraded from hourly to two-hourly. We also have representatives from the Women's Institute, Accessible Belper and Transition Belper (Transport & Travel group TB,T&T) to speak about the impact on the lives of specific user groups.

This meeting is not to apportion blame but to understand the problems faced by bus operators and to explore possible immediate solutions.

The basic meeting agenda is:

1. A greeting by the chair (that's me and I promise to be brief)
2. The panel of bus operators and councillors to introduce themselves.
3. Women's Institute, Accessible Belper and TB,T&T to do likewise.
4. Then questions from the floor to be answered by our guests.
5. Conclusion of meeting to indicate next steps.

Many have emailed saying that they would like to attend but are unable because they have no evening bus service so there is a possibility of a follow up zoom meeting that they can attend.

Public Meeting in Belper to discuss bus cancelations -Thursday February 22nd 19:00

Public Meeting to discuss bus cancelations

Thursday 22nd February at 19:00

Strutt Centre, Derby Road, Belper DE56 1UU

As an Amber Valley Borough Councillor I am receiving a lot of contact from people who have experienced buses not turning up. Other councillors tell me that they too are getting complaints so the issue is widespread across many routes. That is why a public meeting has been called, a chance to meet bus operators and councils to discuss the problem and, hopefully, to chart a way forward. So far I am aware of ongoing problems with the Sixes, Sevens, Nines, 138, 141, 147. 

Invitees that have accepted the invitation to the meeting are:

• Trent Barton Buses (a company director and an operations manager)
• Derbyshire Community Transport (board member)
• The leader of Amber Valley Borough Council
• Belper Town Council
• Women's Institute (currently have a bus campaign)
• Accessible Belper
• Transition Belper (transport & Travel Group)

Derbyshire County Council have been invited as well as other bus companies and it is to be hoped that they will be able to attend.

All welcome at the meeting

Belper Leisure Centre in trouble but needs calm, not sensationalism

 Belper Labour candidates for the Amber Valley Borough and Belper Town Council elections had a meeting last week to consider the problem of funding for the Belper Leisure Centre. We had just been made aware that the Leisure Centre financial advisors were proposing to issue a press statement in the next few days and we had to decide how we would respond to this.

Link to: Belper Leisure Centre Press release 

Pleased to see that in that statement is an acknowledgement that Belper Town Council tried to help by doubling their annual £10k grant to £20k. I know, far short of what is needed but as we set the Belper Town Council budget for 2023/24 we were conscious of the fact that local tax payers already pay the borough for leisure facilities and should not be asked to pay twice.

Obviously the discussion between Belper borough councillors and candidates centred around a rescue plan but we wanted to work towards a long term solution for funding and to make the future secure. We chose not to pre-empt any press release even though we were appalled that the Tory party leadership of Derbyshire County Council and Amber Valley Borough Council had chosen not to make the knowledge of the leisure Centre's financial problems known to the Labour opposition. We did not want the leisure centre and also Belper School to suffer from becoming an election football. What was needed was calm deliberation and a coming together of all interested parties to find a lasting solution and, we agreed to work towards a plan that had sustainable energy at the heart of it. We therefore prepared a "just in case" statement but hoped that with voter's support we could become the ruling group in AVBC and then put together a package ........... no, not a rescue package ........... but help create a sound financial basis to secure the leisure centre's long term future. 

So, this is the response from Chris Emmis-Williams, leader of the AVBC Labour Group:

The parlous financial state of Belper Leisure Centre has not formally been raised at the Council and I was disappointed to hear that applications for funding to the Council have been refused without any public discussion or engagement.

While the Council's finances have been left in tatters by 13 years of Tory austerity, if Labour takes control of Amber Valley Borough Council on May 4th we will immediately call a meeting of all involved parties including Derbyshire County Council and Belper School to explore and follow up on all the options. You will have seen from the official press release that both the Tory controlled  DCC and AVBC councils have walked away from this extremely serious situation which especially affects the children of Belper and their educational needs I will thoroughly investigate how this situation has been allowed to occur, and ensure that everyone is fully informed from now on. A Labour-led Council will also explore what discretionary funding options may be open to the Council in order to avert this crisis. In the longer term, the priority must be to work in partnership with all parties to put the Leisure Centre onto a more secure financial footing so that it can continue to provide key services to the town into the future.  

As a borough councillor for Belper I am very annoyed because in March of this year I attended a briefing in the council chamber that detailed the financial situation of the three leisure centres, Ripley, Alfreton and Heanor. I spoke up about the fourth,  in Belper but was told that there was no plan or even an acknowledgement of our centre. To sit there and have to listen to the complacency of spending over £3.2 million plus £800k to make good the hit of energy price rises was galling when at the same time the Tory led councils of DCC and AVBC were cutting back on financial assistance to Belper Leisure Centre ................... in fact, AVBC halving the grant to £40k. £4 million for Ripley, Alfreton and Heanor but only a hundredth of that for Belper. It should be noted that only Tory and Labour councillors attended that meeting.

Finally the statement from Belper candidates for AVBC:

Belper Leisure Centre is a vital facility for the entire community and essential for a town of this size, as well as providing key services for Belper School. We are disturbed to hear that the Leisure Centre is now working with an insolvency partner due to the 400% increase in energy costs faced by leisure centres worldwide. The Labour-led Belper Town Council has done what it can, but more is needed. It would be unforgivable to see our Leisure Centre close because of inadequate support from this Tory government, or from the Tory-led County and Borough Councils.

If elected to Amber Valley Borough Council, we will pursue every avenue to keep the Leisure Centre open. While the Council's finances are severely constrained following years of disastrous Tory austerity and economic mismanagement, we will ensure that all avenues are explored in terms of how Amber Valley Borough Council can support our Leisure Centre through this crisis. We will work with all others, including Derbyshire County Council and possible other funding sources including sustainable energy, in order to find a solution leading to the long term security of our Leisure Centre.

The Importance of Robert Owen and his links with Belper

Belper Town Council decided to support the plan to place a clock on the façade of the Co-op store in Strutt Street to celebrate the life of Robert Owen and his links with Belper. The idea was supposed to coincide with the 250th anniversary of Robert Owen's birth but in 2021 we were still experiencing the restrictions of the Covid pandemic. Manufacture and installation of the clock had to be postponed. The co-op movement has been commemorating the 250th anniversary of Owen’s birth, and his belief that society could be transformed peacefully and ordinary working people should be able to enjoy education, good health, decent living conditions and recreation.

Link to the initial proposal submitted to Belper Town Council

 So who was Robert Owen?

Robert Owen
(William Henry Brooke)
National Portrait Gallery

Owen advocated a day split into eight hours work, eight hours recreation and eight hours rest – and the clock’s design is split into three segments representing the 24-hour period. He was instrumental in raising the age that children could be employed in mills to 10.

Born in 1771 in Wales Robert rose to be a mill owner and promoted his "utopian socialist" ideals. He went on to promote socialist communities which were a primary influence on the development of the cooperative movement and the creation of unions.

He became nationally important through his influence on the Cotton Mills and Factories Act 1819 which was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which was its first attempt to regulate the hours and conditions of work of children in the cotton industry. It was introduced by Sir Robert Peel, who had first introduced a bill on the matter in 1815. The 1815 bill had been instigated by Robert Owen, but the Act as passed was much weaker than the 1815 bill; the Act forbade the employment of children under 9; children aged 9–16 years were limited to 12 hours' work per day and could not work at night. There was no effective means of its enforcement, but it established the precedent for Parliamentary intervention on conditions of employment which was followed by subsequent Factory Acts.

What is his link with Belper?

Owen was an associate of William Strutt – the son of Jedediah Strutt, a partner of manufacturer and inventor Richard Arkwright – and his progressive ideas influenced the way the Strutt family developed their mill empire in Belper, making provision for employees and their families. The choice of the Belper Co-op in Strutt Street is therefore a good choice for the clock and recognises the importance of the Strutt family in the social history of our nation.

Heritage is not just bricks and mortar

Mention "heritage" in Belper and immediately people think of the North and East Mills; there is though so much more, the heritage of ideas. The Strutt family were heavily influenced by the philosophy and ideas that flowed from the enlightenment and it was only natural that they would have welcomed the chance to discuss social reforms with Robert Owen. The mills will take tens of millions to adapt and preserve so is way out of reach of local councils although their active support will be needed if a sustainable funding source can be found. It is however possible to promote the importance of Belper and its place in the development of social reforms. Belper Town Council has voted to partner with the Central Co-op to commemorate Robert Owen's birth and we look forward to a nationally significant unveiling ceremony which will bring many visitors to our town.

Finally - a YouTube video exploring Robert Owen's life in more detail

Car Parks in Belper

 There seems to be a lot of opinion being aired on social media regarding the issue of so-called "free parking" in Belper. It is important in such matters to distinguish facts from non-researched belief and this post attempts to provide that factual base. The main contentions are that businesses will be harmed and that poor people will be impacted adversely but first let's look at why charges are being introduced.

Coppice car park charges.

Referring to the Belper Town Council website provides us with a succinct account of their reason for introducing charges: https://www.belpertowncouncil.gov.uk/news/2023/03/coppice-car-park. We see that the cost in business rates is £22,500 per year (and I know that when these rates were applied by central government the charges were backdated to 2017. So not only does BTC have to pay the current years charge but make good the backdated amount which more than doubles the amount for, I think, three years (though business rates were suspended for one year during the Covid pandemic). The council states, "As a council, we believe it is fairer that users of the car park pay for their usage rather than this cost being supported by everyone in the town regardless of car ownership."

The suggested charges are shown below compared to other car park charges in the town:

You can find the AVBC car park information at: https://www.ambervalley.gov.uk/roads-and-parking/parking/

It should be noted that there is still more consultation required before charges are fixed and conditions applied. I can see that a change to the 4 hour charge on the Coppice may be anticipated because it stands out as the only increase over a charge in the other car parks. There has to be some clarity on the "over 4 hours" charge at the Coppice - does this mean 24 hours? If it does then that is superb value for those who park there and walk down to catch a train. Compare £2.50 with the charge of £14.50 at Derby Railway Station.

There will have to be some thought about season tickets and how they line up with AVBC offer but 99p a day that is hard to beat.

Finally, nearby residents will be offered parking permits as they currently depend upon the Coppice for longer term parking. This is a good step but which streets are referred to as "nearby" needs to be determined.

Will businesses and shops be harmed? 

There is a lot of misinformation being put online at the moment, some claims seeming incredible. I read that 97% of Belper residents were opposed to Coppice car park charges and that 86% of businesses were against it. I don't know anyone who has taken part in such a survey. When offered claims like this the Office for National Statistics advise that all evidence of such a survey should be disclosed. For example, 100% of the people I live with claimed that they were my wife. I think you get the picture.

As to businesses being polled; Belper Town Council invited local shops and businesses to take part in the initial round of consultation and only 2 responded. I can well understand that most shops are not too concerned as the sum total of car park spaces is well over a thousand (600 between AVBC & BTC plus all the supermarket car parks). The figure is probably much more as I have no hardened data for the spaces at Morrisons, Aldi and the Co-op. I estimate that the Coppice car park constitutes about a sixth of the total number of spaces available. If we factor in the AVBC residents permit and the number of folk who access the town via public transport or on foot/bicycle then the percentage impact of Coppice  car park charges on business is negligible. You have to keep a sense of proportion.

There are academic studies that look at the effect of withdrawing so-called free parking from town centres and I link to them here:

Leeds University - Parking Charges

Institute for Transport Studies

OECD - The Environmental effects of parking

These  three studies clearly show that charging for parking does not harm business activity and can offer clear commercial, environmental and health benefits. Below is one of a number of summary panels which are included in the Leeds University study (apologies for the quality of the image - I used screen snip)

Which brings us to:

Impoverished motorists

Sadly, the number of impoverished motorists has grown over the last few years as incomes have not kept up with the rising cost of living, exacerbated by a steep rise in inflation over the past few months. Let's look in more depth.

Pensioners in general have the time to shop and park using their AVBC residents permits and for a modest sum can do so after 14:00. They also have the use of a Gold Card and can travel on buses free after 09:30.

Household deprivation - Referring to the data now available from the 2021 Census we get a range of data to help us assess the number of motorists who may be impacted by proposed Coppice car park charges. For a start, 15% of households do not own a vehicle. Looking at the socio-economic data indicates, (if we assume levels 13 and below could be counted as impoverished) that there is a potential for 22% of people between the age of 16 and 64 could be impoverished. This does include 4.5% classified as students. I know that income data included in NP4B (Neighbourhood Plan for Belper) showed a potential for 14% of households to be below the poverty threshold (below 60% of current median (or typical) household income, taking into account the number of people living in the household. This does of course include all ages.

So how many motorists are impoverished? Sadly, many are but how many impoverished motorists use the Coppice car park ......... that we don't know. There are alternatives as I hope this article has shown however, some form of initiative to assist those dependent on cheap parking to gain an annual season ticket would be beneficial to ......... how many we don't know.

Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/customprofiles/build/

In conclusion

There are so many facts left out of this post. So much data from the 2021 Census or the Department of Works and Pensions area income data ................ or the Department for Transport annual traffic flow surveys  and for this you could look at  the NP4B on the Belper Town Council Website, specifically Addendum 5 Traffic survey and parking or Addendum 6 - Public Transport which does include data from the 2011 census showing that 33% of the 10th or lowest socio-economic households have the use of a single car.

You see, this is the sort of evidenced information that is needed if a true understanding is to be made of issues such as this. We live in the twenty first century and there should be no place for biased and deliberately misleading information to be spread on social media. 

Myth spinning - - - Amber Valley Borough Council and the Green Belt

Far Laund - Tories want to build 345 houses here when there is no reason why this is needed

It is a myth that we have to build on Amber Valley Green Belt land. There is a raft of facts and figures that clearly show that we have no need to extend our urban sprawl but listening to a Belper Tory councillor explain why we had to build 345 houses on Far Laund plus nigh on a further 1,700 on other sites in the borough had me shaking my head in disbelief at last Monday's Amber Valley Council meeting.

 This was his reasoning:

1. The AVBC planning board cannot do it's job properly when dealing with requests to build on unsuitable green belt sites .......... they need a local plan.
2. The Local Plan is endlessly delayed because the council cannot demonstrate a supply of 5,000 new houses in the next 5 years.
3. The only way to reach that 5 year target is to allow developers to build on unsuitable green belt sites.
4. Once developers are allowed to build on green belt land the government inspector will at last accept the AVBC Local Plan so the planning board will be able to do it's job more effectively and resist applications to build on the green belt.

I kid you not. I sat in the Ripley council chamber listening to that drivel. Of course the planning board would find the going easier because it had already given away the prime sites they had been elected to protect. My thoughts turned to the word, "myth" . The decision to build on the green belt based upon evidence that is little more than a myth will ensure that we are heading for years of conflict between residents, AVBC and developers.

All four Belper Tory councillors voted to build on green belt land despite years claiming that a vote for them would be a vote to protect Belper from unwanted development. I am sure that Amber Valley residents will not allow this decision o stand after the borough elections in May. The Labour Manifesto clearly states no building on the green belt so, if they take control we should expect immediate action. 

See here: Amber Valley Labour Manifesto 2019

The Labour opposition pleaded with the  council leader, Kevin Buttery, to separate the extension of  green belt protection over Pottery Farm and Cherry Tree Farm (effectively Bullsmoor) so that the plan to build on other sites could be voted upon solely on its merits. Buttery's refusal was playing politics as it was evident, as the leader of the opposition, Chris Emmas-Williams said, every councillor in this chamber would like to see Bullsmoor suitably protected. All to no avail.

Link to a video of the Council meeting 4th March 2019

I had my name down to speak at the meeting but was told on arrival that I was in fact a reserve speaker as Alan Cox had been chosen to speak about Far Laund. I never had the chance to put the case that there was in fact no need to build on the green belt as there was publicly available data demonstrating something quite different. I was not allowed to speak at the meeting so I'm writing this article now in the hope that this appeasement policy can be stopped.

The facts Amber Valley Tories are not telling you

There were so many red herrings and misconceptions coming from the Tories at that meeting and I had to sit silent. It was galling. Their biggest claim was that we cannot meet the 5 year housing supply target for the 2011 - 2028 period, let's look at that:

• 2011 = 52,596 homes (from 2011 census)
• 2018 = 58,000 homes  (AVBC declared domestic council tax payers)
• Therefore the number of new homes 2011 - 2018 is 5,404
• In 2018 we reached the 2025 target number of homes 7 years early (according to forecast by GL Hearn consultants for the Derby HMA).

What of going forward:

• The agreed minimum 9,770 homes by 2028 assumed a target of 62,366 total homes in the borough.
• Taking the figures included in the last Local Plan draft 2017/2018, AVBC were targeting a total 64,515 homes by 2028.
• Add in windfall and the effect of releasing green belt land and AVBC are targeting up to 66,000 by 2028. 
• Simple maths shows that AV Tories are pushing for at least an extra 3,634 above the figure negotiated in the Derby HMA agreement.

Demographic data shows that an increase in AV homes of up to 20% between 2011 - 2028 was inevitable so negotiating a figure of a fraction over 18% was a shrewd move in 2014 (Derby HMA heads of agreement 2014). In the light of the fact that the present Tory council are heading for an increase in AV homes of 25% it does seem strange that their leader, Kevin Buttery, endlessly blames Labour for that 18% increase. If they just made decisions based upon that agreement then we would not be faced with the endless challenges that are to come. Think of the time, effort and money expended in relation to the Belper Lane development, Bessalone and Bullsmoor (to be Belper specific). It has been very costly for protesters, councils and developers. None of it necessary if our communities had been able to rely on AVBC to do what they are elected to do.  

There was no need to add Green Belt sites to the Local Plan as we are already on target and, it should be argued, have already reached our 5 year target. It seems that there is the real world as reflected in council tax returns and the parallel reality of AV Tories who have demonstrated their intent of delivering green belt and green field land to developers when there is absolutely no need to do it. Brownfield sites are deliverable but are not the preferred route of AV Tories. You don't have to rely solely on my analysis ...... the government agrees with me:

Department for Housing and Local Government report

This is the ongoing monitoring of new homes being built in England and is presented in spreadsheet form. Amber Valley is the 3rd listed authority showing that in the 3 years between 2015 and 2018 there was a requirement to build 1,136 homes but actual performance was 1,648. They forecast that AV is on course to exceed the required 2028 build by 45%. This is in line with my own calculations. Council officers should be aware of this and therefore so must the relevant AVBC cabinet members.

Now you don't just have my conclusion but also a report from the Department of Housing and Local Government  (DHLG) clearly stating that the borough does not have a problem delivering the 5 year requirement and is in fact deeply in credit. The DHLG are forecasting that Amber Valley will build 14,166 new homes between 2011 and 2028 (remember the target was 9,770) which indicates a total number of homes of 66,762 ........ so if anything I have underestimated.

So what should be done

There is of course the ballot box on May 2nd but following that, on May 3rd the new council must move to negate last Monday's decision to build on the green belt. They should also be reaching for the phone to contact the consultants who carried out the Green Belt report and ask them to carry out a similar exercise but this time for brownfield sites of which there are many in Amber Valley.

We need an Amber Valley Brownfield site  report to finally nail the idea being put forward by the current council that such sites do not deliver the housing needed in the borough. Their argument is wrong ........... for example:

• The brownfield Belper police station site was developed with 14 homes.
• Taking that "urban" density and applying it across the 149.5 hectares on the AVBC Brownfield register would net over 7,000 homes.
• Obviously not all brownfield sites would be that promising but we could expect a minimum of 75% deliverability, say 5,250.
• Add this to the 5,404 already delivered and we have a total of 10,654 (easily exceeding the target of 9,770)

We must ensure that decisions are made upon facts and not myths

The labyrinth of planning ......... and a way out of it

The Minotaur surprised while eating
Maggi Hambling - Tate

I know this may seem stupid but I am starting to feel really sorry with all those involved with the AVBC attempts to produce a viable Local Plan .......... from the understaffed planning department to obviously befuddled responsible councillors .... oh and not forgetting the large number of Amber Valley residents who make their views known at hearings and through the consultation process. It brings to mind the Labyrinth in which the Minotaur was trapped; constantly revisiting passageways that never led to freedom. Does that sound like the AVBC Local Plan process? Ah yes, the beast of planning, never sure of what it is trying to do nor how to do it. I draw this allusion because of the maze that AVBC now inhabits (hopefully there is no need to apologise for including Maggi Hamblings wonderful painting - - that's how I see the current impasse).

It just gets worse : AVBC's Local Plan Inspector's note July 2018

Timetable chart extract from Inspector's note

So the hearings will resume just around the time that AVBC staff will be organising an election in 15 wards ................ but there are serious doubts that they will be able to redraft their plan by April'May 2019. What AVBC is attempting is a complete rewrite of the Local Plan so many factors have to be considered; not least because the inspector wrote:

"The process of identifying and proposing additional sites for housing and other uses should be carried out in an open and transparent way, using an appropriate methodology which objectively considers and assesses the reasonable alternatives. The Council should set out clearly its reasons for selecting the reasonable alternatives chosen, which should then be subject to an equal examination. This would be best achieved by the production of an Addendum to the Sustainability Appraisal (SA).

 With regards to the submitted SA, although I acknowledge, for instance, that it is important to take into account additional information that may be available in respect of a site which is the subject of a current planning application, this should not be at the expense of a site which does not have the benefit of further detailed supporting evidence. In cases such as this, the Council should consider the possibility of similar provision being made on the other site or sites in order that the reasonable alternatives are assessed on an equal basis". (that second paragraph is a killer)

There is considerable cause for concern as they have been basing the housing forecasts on pre-existing planning applications and it would be prudent to assume that the green belt assessment will follow this pattern, a re-assessment of hitherto rejected planning applications to develop land such as AVA/2017/0322 which proposed 185 homes on 10.6 hectares of green belt land off Crich Lane in 2017.  (more on planning application AVA/2017/0322 go here)

A pertinent question would be, "how many rejected applications to build on green belt land could be referenced by AVBC?"

Back to the positive

Pinglewick village at the end of Acorn Drive in Belper. Admittedly built in the 1970's on a green field site.
The boxed in area is 0.1477 hectares containing 65 dwellings with a density of dwellings per hectare of over 400.

You can find a video of the developer describing the construction of Pinglewick here.

We discussed in a previous blog post that a better way forward for AVBC would be to assess how much development could be undertaken on brownfield sites ............ using as an example the work undertaken or commissioned by the NP4B team. This prompted a thought ........ just how many hectares of brownfield locations were included in the AVBC brownfield site register?  The answer, after a simple totting up (didn't even have to take my socks off) is 149.36 hectares. Which leads on to how many dwellings could be built on these brownfield sites:

Yes of course not all of the sites would be suitable for housing or at appreciable densities but as the target number of homes in Amber Valley is 9,770 there is a fair degree of leeway ........... especially as there are a considerable number of windfall and other large housing developments that have been built since 2011. The Office of National Statistics (ONS) lists 56,130 households paying council tax in 2016 whereas in 2011 there were 52,596 ............ an increase of 3,534 though how many of these extra dwellings are counted towards the Local Plan target is a moot point (a development below a certain number of houses is not "statistically" relevant ... apparently). If we assume an incremental increase of 700 homes per year of which a conservative third or 233 can be counted as part of the Local Plan target then by now (mid-summer 2018) the target has dwindled to somewhere around 8,200. If these calculations were acceptable to the inspector then there would seem to be enough brownfield site capacity in Amber Valley to match the target. If, as would seem sensible, the Local Plan end date was adjusted (2011 - 2028 = 17 years) to 2035 then we could assess the true value of brownfield sites for years to come. No need for development of green belt or green field land.

A further look at densities

We should also note that densities above 80 are achievable on some sites as per these two examples:

• Belper East Mill development proposal is over 600 dwellings per hectare so renovation of existing though moribund industrial premises offer significant advantages.
• Pinglewick is over 400 dwellings per hectare.

Examples of acceptable housing densities can be found here in an Architect's Journal article - Planning Suburban Housing Density and three informative graphics from that publication are copied below:

35 dwellings per hectare

50 dwellings per hectare

80 dwellings per hectare

A cautionary note is that two extant planning applications for local brownfield development sites, the Arbru site in Milford and Derwent Street North in Belper were for density of dwellings per hectare of 22 and 26 respectively. There is obviously a lot of scope for the council to be in discussion with developers and funding bodies in an attempt to unlock the potential of our derelict brownfield sites.

Despite election pledges AVBC look to develop on green belt land?

The performance of Amber Valley Borough Council is becoming more and more disturbing. This blog has referenced AVBC quite a few times, admittedly never from a position of approval except for that one post about homelessness in Belper when the diligence and obvious compassion of the council officer involved was duly noted. I am sure that there are other officers who are equally as involved with their allotted responsibilities but I fear that they are battling against overwhelming odds. I am trying to hold on to this belief though a recent development in the inspection process of the AVBC Local Plan has once again led to questions of competence. The nub of the Local Plan is to allocate land for the development of 9,770 homes within the time period of 2011 - 2028. There is also an added imperative that development should not be delayed towards the latter end of this period so AVBC has to demonstrate that 5,000 homes will be built in the initial 5 years. In the real world the 5 years started in 2011 but in the world of Amber Valley the 5 years starts now. According to Labour Councillor Ben Bellamy AVBC had spent over £1 million by 2017 on unsuccessful attempts to produce a plan (see here Ben's excellent article in Nailed - Belper Independent news).

It is obvious that AVBC has been struggling to produce a viable Local Plan for some years and yet again their shortcomings have hit difficulties during the inspection process:

Inspector’s Note on Land North of Denby

The Council considers that the process of identifying and proposing additional sites is likely to require the release of land currently within the Green Belt. As such, the Council proposes to undertake a Borough-wide Green Belt boundary review in order to inform this process. The Council has confirmed that, given that part of the site known as Land North of Denby is within the Green Belt, any review of the Green Belt boundary is likely to include an assessment of this site. 

Following the review of the Green Belt, the Council will then consider whether any potential sites within the Green Belt, including that which forms part of the Land North of Denby, could be identified and proposed as Housing Growth Sites, including the assessment of Reasonable Alternatives. A Sustainability Appraisal will also be carried out. 

This map is helpful in understanding what land is being considered :

This map which is included in AVBC's Local Plan clearly identifies the green belt land that is to be considered for development. AVBC is employing external consultants to carry out this appraisal which, as the council admits, is looking solely at green belt land re-designation. This is not just waiving the white flag of defeat but a clear statement that after years of election promises to voters this Tory administration is willing to renege on their pledges (for more on this see here .........and also here where the Tory record of building on green belt land is explored plus Labour's opposition to it). Apologies for the seeming incestuousness of referencing earlier BelperStuff posts but they do contain some interesting links.

There is another way - the alternative of Brownfield site development

Here in Belper there has been a spirited opposition to development of greenfield land such as Bullsmoor and Belper Lane and we can now see that Neighbourhood Plan for Belper has taken this on board with their strategy of restricting any large scale development in the parish to brownfield sites (see here NP4B Viability study of brownfield sites for the Parish of Belper). The majority of these sites are contained within the AVBC Local Plan but they have relied solely on the planning applications by developers to determine the number and types of housing that would be built. NP4B has realised that the AVBC plan envisages larger homes configured to a suburban density; for instance the Arbru site in Milford comprising 136 homes has a density of 22 dwellings per hectare. By raising the density and type of dwelling ( less bedrooms to suit starter homes and downsizing from larger homes on the outlying estates) to 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare, which is more in line with the urban nature of these sites the target figure for development in the parish can be contained on brownfield sites. Indeed, with careful planning these sites could provide the homes needed for the next 20 years without recourse to development on green field or green belt land. This depends upon the NP4B being passed at a referendum and a methodology being found to produce the homes that are desperately needed rather than the AVBC method of relying on what he market decides to build.

Brownfield sites in Amber Valley (from AVBC Local Plan)

So what should AVBC do?

The simple answer is that the borough should decide that: 

• A Green Belt Boundary Review should only be undertaken following a borough wide Brownfield Site Viability Survey.
• AVBC to negotiate with developers to build homes that are needed on brownfield sites (as for example outlined in the NP4B Housing Needs assessment 2016 - note the 360 additional sheltered homes need within the parish by 2028)
• AVBC to explore funding streams to promote brownfield site development (they could start here, New Government measures to promote brownfield site development - with a gross potential of £4.2 billion.)
• AVBC does have a brownfield register so why not add that to the specification you give to your consultants.

Has AVBC done any of this?

Cognitive dissonance

Last year I shared a conversation with a Tory borough councillor (representing Duffield) who boasted that, "we have reduced Amber Valley staff numbers by 134 ......... that is the way you manage local government". He said far more than that but I found his comments so unsavoury that I'll not repeat them here. I could see that he was convinced that staff cuts were a good thing but when I pointed out the consequences of a reduced planning department that was struggling to deal with planning applications and produce a viable Local Plan he could not see the connection.  The point was not lost on me that he measured borough council success on how much money could be "saved" by making staff cuts rather than the council serving the community in a meaningful way. It is the mentality of small government.

Local Government planning departments have lost 60% of their funding since 2010

The Councillor's belief that the market will supply the homes needed without any intervention by local authorities is current Conservative thinking and has been since the Thatcher years so he's not alone. The evidence however does not support this belief:

The private sector and housing associations have proved to be inadequate providers of new homes for a growing population. Privatisation of housing supply has failed. For anyone who believes in smaller government and the primacy of private companies in dictating what and where is to be built a chart such as the one above will cause them to have a headache. So what do they do? The evidence disproves core conservative doctrine ........... the only way is to let private developers loose on virgin land whilst in our town centres old industrial buildings rot.

But what would Labour do?

We will protect the greenbelt, and prioritise brownfield land for development. (an extract from their 2017 Housing Manifesto - New Deal on Housing

This is also the policy of local Labour councillors.

Results of yesterdays Belper AVBC elections ............. an analysis for nerds

Success in Belper but losses elsewhere means Tories increase their majority hold of the borough. Congratulations to Carol and Fay.

Both Labour candidates won their wards with Carol retaining Belper South whilst Fay wrested Belper East from the Tories. A good result for Belper Labour but not so successful elsewhere as we did not make any inroads in Duffield and lost 2 wards in Heanor and 1 in Ripley.

Further analysis

Belper East

What the figures show is that a 6% increase in turnout favoured Labour and easily offset the fallout from the UKIP disintegration (if not fielding a candidate can be so described). Labour campaigned hard to win this ward and fielded an excellent candidate, backed by a dedicated team of supporters which netted a 52% increase in their vote. In contrast, the Tories relied upon their incumbent retaining the seat with the help of UKIP voters in search of someone to vote for which gave them a 29% increase over 2014. The strong LibDem increase of 141% is encouraging for them and evidence that they are emerging from the cloud cast over them from their alliance with the Tories at national level (or is it ...... see Belper South results).

Belper South

With only a 1% increase in turnout Belper South should be an easier analytical proposition but the emergence of both Green and Independent candidates coupled with the towel being thrown in by UKIP  leaves this ward hard to read. Labour and Tories increased their vote by a similar percentage amount but Carol Angharad attracted an extra 182 votes (evidence of incredibly hard work and application) whilst Tim Sutton (who is presumed to be the next Belper mayor) could only manage an extra 148 votes. In 2014 it seemed that the UKIP vote was a decisive factor in Erik Johnsen winning for Labour, the theory being that UKIP took votes away from the Tories. The 2018 result does not support this analysis as Labour's showing suggests that many UKIP voters have moved to Labour. The significance of the 200 Independent and Green votes tends to confirm this.

The collapse of the Liberal vote in Belper South is at variance with their strong showing in Belper East which could or could not be reflection of strength of candidate and campaign.  

Looking forward to 2019

It should be noted that Labour now has 4 seats in Belper so has emerged as a strong force in the town's representation. In 2019 a further 4 Belper borough council seats (all Tory) will be up for election. The work never stops.

One last comment

I would like to thank Erik Johnsen for his hard work over the past 4 years, not only for Belper South but for the help he gave to BelperStuff, supplying accurate feedback to ensure that this blog remained truthful. Well done Erik and good luck for the future.

YOU HAVE TO THINK THROUGH THE CONSEQUENCES ................... Amber Valley council election 2 days to go

In yesterdays blogpost I mentioned the content of Belper Tories facebook page. I braced myself and took another look today and, to be fair, the content, in the main is an acceptable expression of the image that local Tories want to promote about conservatism. Unfortunately some of their posts need closer scrutiny such as their slant on parking. In their zeal to attack Labour they have not thought about the consequences of their car park plan. I noticed that they had a graphic that attacked the Labour plan to sell off the Field Lane car park extension (so-called). I thought this warranted a closer look because I consider the Tory position to be illogical and ill thought out.

Additional note: It has just been brought to the attention of BelperStuff that whilst the Tories attack Labour about wanting to sell off the parcel of land off Field Lane it was the Tories  themselves who actually did  propose to sell it off in March 2014. As you read through this blog keep in mind that the land is still up for sale by the Tory controlled borough council despite what Tories would have you think. Theirs is not a well thought out strategy ....... more akin to knee jerk reactions.

The graphic that they produced is:

Belper Conservatives

8 January · 

The graphic is intentionally misleading as it suggests that Labour want to sell Field Lane car park in its entirety which is not the case; though the Tories do admit in the accompanying text that it is only the so-called extension that is proposed for sale (that's the lighter square of land under the "LE!" of the word "SALE" superimposed on the above image).

Now if I was a Tory I would want to keep very quiet about this small parcel of land. It was bought by AVBC Tories to be the site of a new leisure centre and never intended to be a car park. Those plans had to be scrapped because the scheme depended upon a level of government funding which, when applied for was declined on the basis that Belper already has a leisure centre. Unfortunately, the Tories had already bought the land so to make the best of a bad job they re-purposed the land as a car park extension. The shame of it is that they shunned the opportunity to buy some land adjacent to Derwent Street that would have cost a third of what they spent on Field Lane and provided far more car parking spaces. What we have ended up with is car parking at a cost per space similar of what you would expect to spend in central London and not in a small Derbyshire town. The cost per car in Belper should be under £5,000 but the Tories have managed to spend nearer £50,000 per space. You could finesse the site to bring that cost down but this only to around £40,000 per space. ( for an insight into the methodology of this calculation you should start here).

What are the consequences of the Tory proposals?

By making this attack on Labour's plans the Tories have put forward what they intend to do about parking in the town once the residential development of Derwent Street North commences, bringing with it the closure of the Derwent Street car park.

Derwent Street car park on a typical midweek day. Yes the Sun is shining. Photo by BelperStuff

The Tory plan is that all these cars will be transferred to the Field Lane car park. That means that there will be a considerable extra number of cars entering the car park via the Bridge Street/Field Lane junction or the rat run through Church Street/Green Lane. Many feel that Bridge Street is already saturated with traffic so any increase in the number of vehicles making a right turn into Field Lane could prove to be chaotic. The Tories have already lodged objections to planning applications on Derwent Street based on concerns of traffic congestion but now they propose to increase the number of vehicles entering Field Lane even though it is a far more sensitive junction.

The traffic problem in Belper warrants a far more intelligent approach than what we are offered by the Tories. Now that I am aware that they base their car parking strategy on a small parcel of land that they actually want to sell I find the situation quite bizarre.  There is of course the adjacent Ada Belfield care home site with the residents moving to the new facility being built within the old chocolate factory on Derwent Street. I expect that the potential of the combined care home/car park extension area has not escaped the notice of potential developers.

Google Maps satellite image overlaid with typical traffic flows on a weekday morning

The effect that a supersized Field Lane car park would have on these flows can be easily imagined.

So what is the Labour alternative?

Labour propose selling off the so-called car park extension and, if they can recoup the full amount that was paid by the Tories for the site, use the money to realise the dream to rebuild the River Gardens Tea Rooms as envisaged by the Friends of Belper River Gardens. The residue should then be more then enough to enable an invigorated Labour controlled AVBC to explore sensible parking options that would utilise far less costly land and have minimum impact on traffic levels in the town.

The town deserves an overarching traffic plan for the town and not this bodging approach we have at the moment. The plan should be evidence driven and complimentary to the historic nature of the town. The ultimate solution for Belper is that we have an enhanced public transport network plus residential development that encourages people to walk rather than use their cars. Strategies such as this are needed now and this is what you will get if you vote for Fay and Carol in 2 days time on May 3rd.

I know that those seeking your vote often make the claim that a vote for them is a vote for change but this Thursday in Belper that is exactly how it is. A vote for Fay and Carol in Belper East and Belper South would help to ensure that the Tories are ousted from power in Amber Valley so that we bring forward policies that are of real benefit rather than those proposed by the Tories as they try to paper over the cracks of their mismanagement.

THE FIRST CASUALTY OF ELECTIONS IS TRUTH ----------------- Amber Valley council election in 3 days time

Yes I know that the actual quotation concerns war and not elections but as canvassing skirmishes intensify there is an uncanny resemblance to warfare. I suppose every candidate starts out with the intention of running a, "positive campaign" but as election day draws near the temptation to be negative about your opponents becomes irresistible. The crucible of social media has added a seductive layer of opportunity to candidates and supporters to get "down and dirty", the smell of political cordite overpowering good sense but this is not a new phenomenon.

Canvassing for Votes -  William Hogarth (1697-1764) Sir John Soane's Museum

As I was writing that flowery introduction it occurred to me that I should take a look at the main protagonists face book pages to see the current state of play. Facebook has never appealed to me so I rarely consult it but I do rely on regular facebook users to promote this blog. Anyway, I first looked at Belper Conservatives on facebook and in just a few seconds noticed 3 pure (impure) character slurs on local Labour councillors and candidates. Turning to the Belper & Duffield Labour Party facebook page I found no references to local Tories (pure or impure); all posts concentrated on issues rather than personalities .................. except for this:

Belper News article about the Amber Valley Tory planning board chair, Councillor Jack Brown's failure to declare a pecuniary interest. I'm still trying to get my mind around this. He used his casting vote to agree a green field development in Somercotes whilst not declaring that his wife stood to gain financially if the application was passed. Did I just try to cast a slur on a Tory? No, he did it himself. I am genuinely saddened by this news as it demeans a public office. In spreading such news I am reminded of this, "Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when they stumble, do not let your heart rejoice."

This news item is relevant because Belper Tories are claiming that a vote for Labour would usher in green field development despite the fact that our candidates plus all sitting AVBC Labour councillors have pledged that they will vote against green field development (oh yes I have asked for an assurance) and Labour councillors voted to reject all green belt development. I feel strongly about this Tory mendacity because on the doorstep in Belper East we have heard voters saying that they were told by Tories that voting Labour would be a vote for such development. We've been here before see here and here where the then Tory leader of AVBC tried the same tactic in 2016. If you remember the vote went against him. We have to ask ourselves why is it that despite years of Tory electoral promises to stop green field development we still have the Tory controlled AVBC planning board approving applications such as the Belper Lane development?

Evidence shows that voting Tory increases the risk of green field development

I have interacted with all three local Tory candidates at some point and, to be honest I have to admit that I trust just one of them to honour his election pledges. Unfortunately if by his election Amber Valley remains in Tory hands then more green field development schemes will be accepted. The only way to ensure that untouched land surrounding our town remains undeveloped is to remove control of the council from the Tories.

Just so you know who to vote for in Belper

Fay Atkinson and Carol Angharad ...... thankfully running a positive campaign