We need more objections on the application!

Dear Supporter,

We've been advised that we need more objections on the application on the Amber Valley Council Website. We want this to be around 1000. We currently have around 20! We need your help to change this. 

Please see the information below regarding how to object to the application. Please feel free to forward this on to as many people as you can. They don't have to live in langley mill to object and every person in your household can submit a separate objection.  Ideally, each separate issue should be sent as a separate objection (i.e you can send more than one objection per person). The more objections we get, the more likely we are to be listened to.

What is proposed
The developer wants to change the approved plans for the 93 homes on the land off Hall Road and Cromford Road. The changes would allow the whole site to be built as affordable housing with Places for People.

•       New layout and new house types. The number of homes stays at 93 for now.

•       Smaller homes. The developer's own letter says the homes are only about 85% of the national minimum space standards.

•       Decided by officers. The Borough Council currently lists this as a decision for planning officers, not the elected Planning Board.

•       Target decision date: 22 December 2026.

None of the points below oppose affordable housing. They are about the quality of the homes, compliance with the Local Plan, and a balanced village.

How to object
Planning reference: AVA/2026/0607

Website: ambervalley.gov.uk/planning/development-management/comment-on-an-application

1.      Go to the website above and search for the application using the reference AVA/2026/0607.

2.      Open the application and choose Make comments.

3.      Enter your name and address. Anonymous comments are not considered. Your contact details are removed before comments are published.

4.      Choose Object and paste in the objection text from the section below.

5.      Submit. Then repeat for each further objection you want to make.

By email instead: send your objections to development@ambervalley.gov.uk. Quote AVA/2026/0607 and include your name and address.

The council cannot take comments by phone or in person. Help is available on 01773 570222.

Please comment soon. The council aims to decide this by 22 December 2026, and it can decide once the consultation period has ended.

The objections
Copy the text under each heading into a separate comment. Use only the ones you agree with.

1. Homes below minimum space standards
I object to this application because the homes do not meet the Nationally Described Space Standards, as required by Local Plan Policy EN15. The developer's own letter admits the homes reach only about 85% of the standard and calls this "an acknowledged and defined departure from policy". EN15 allows an exception only where there are significant constraints to development. The reasons given are cost, timing and grant funding. These are financial reasons, not constraints of the site, and no viability evidence has been published. Families will live in these homes for decades and should have homes of at least the minimum size.

2. Layout built around 9 unpermitted homes
I object to the revised layout. The permission is for 93 homes, and an application to vary conditions cannot change that. However, the revised plan places the 93 homes on less land and labels an area within the site "Future development (9 plots)", for which there is no permission. The layout is therefore designed around a larger scheme of about 102 homes that is not being assessed. The council should either assess the cumulative effect of 102 homes now, on drainage, open space, highways and density, or require the 9-plot area to be shown in a use the existing permission allows. Splitting the site in this way prevents proper assessment of the whole development.

3. Housing mix and accessibility
I object because the revised scheme does not show compliance with Local Plan Policy H4. The homes are now mainly 2 and 3 bedroom, and the two bungalows in the original legal agreement appear to have been removed. H4 requires all new homes to meet the accessible and adaptable standard, and 15% of the affordable homes (about 14) to be built to wheelchair standard. The developer's letter mentions neither requirement.

4. Flooding and drainage
I object on flood risk and drainage grounds. A new layout means new hard surfaces and new drainage routes on a site that residents know floods regularly, including during Storm Babet. The Lead Local Flood Authority should be consulted again on the revised plans before any decision is made.

5. Out-of-date wildlife surveys
I object because the ecology surveys date from 2019 and are out of date. Residents report great crested newts and bats on and around the site, both of which are protected species. Up-to-date surveys should be required and assessed before any decision is made.

6. Balance of the community
I object because the scheme would create an imbalance in the housing mix of Langley Mill. Local Plan Policy H4(a) requires regard to any imbalance in the existing mix of housing within settlements. With 109 affordable homes already planned on the former railway sidings, this would place around 200 affordable homes on two neighbouring sites in one small village. The Local Plan expects 20% affordable housing on larger sites in this area, which points to mixed-tenure schemes. I support affordable housing, but good planning requires mixed and balanced communities.

7. Lost infrastructure contributions
I object because the infrastructure contributions for this site were reportedly reduced after the developer twice argued the scheme was not viable. With grant funding now available to deliver the homes, those contributions should be reinstated in full for local schools, health services and roads.

8. Who decides (optional)
I ask that this application is decided by the Planning Board, in public, rather than by officers. The original permission was granted by the Planning Board as a departure from the Local Plan. The developer now admits a further departure from Policy EN15. A change of this significance should be decided openly by elected members.

Tips for a stronger objection
•       Add your own experience. A sentence about flooding you have seen, wildlife you have spotted, or traffic on Cromford Road carries real weight. Objections in your own words count for more than identical copied text.

•       Stick to planning issues. Only material planning considerations are taken into account. Loss of a view or effect on house prices is not.

•       Keep personal details out of the comment box. Everything you write in the comment is published.

•       Want to stay anonymous? Contact the parish council.

Once again, thank you for your support. 

Best wishes

Nichola Cowley