NEDDC Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation on the Strategic Approach to the Location of Development and Refined Sites (March 2026)
Search representations
Results for Hancock Holdings Ltd search
New search New searchObject
NEDDC Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation on the Strategic Approach to the Location of Development and Refined Sites (March 2026)
Shirland (Shirland Cluster)
Representation ID: 15071
Received: 01/05/2026
Respondent: Hancock Holdings Ltd
I am currently experiencing severe and ongoing flooding at my property following the Fox Hollies development.
This is not a minor issue — it is having a significant impact on my home and daily life. It is clear that the drainage systems approved as part of that development are not functioning as intended.
Surface water plans referenced watercourses that do not exist in reality. These were not properly checked, and the consequences are now being experienced by residents.
There are also wider issues across the area, including:
• flooding impacting nearby properties such as Gas Cottage
• the local golf course suffering from water issues
• sewage infrastructure already under strain, with sewage currently bursting from pipes along Pit Lane
This demonstrates that the system is already failing.
Given this, I have no confidence that further development will not result in the same issues being repeated.
The issues I am currently experiencing demonstrate the very real risks associated with further development in this area.
Approving additional housing without first resolving these problems would be irresponsible and would expose more residents to the same situation.
This is not a theoretical concern — it is already happening.
I strongly urge the Council to reconsider these proposals.
Objections from Hancock Holdings Ltd - Landlord of Shirland Golf and Country Club, Pit Lane, Shirland DE55 6AU
I am writing to reiterate Katie Booth’s detailed objections to the Local Plan sites on behalf of Hancock Holdings Ltd.
In addition, we would like to comment that:-
• Severn Trent should have been consulted prior to the release of the proposed sites because many of them may not be suitable due to the current sewage network in and around Shirland. On many occasions, the golf course and Pit Lane neighbours have been subject to burst sewage pipes and the Hallfieldgate Pumping Station overflowing into our streams. If you look at the GIIST plan, you will note that 3 pipes feed into one single pipe at Cllr Heather Liggett’s field which travels to the pumping station.
Only surface water has been considered, not the sewage system.
• We bought the Golf Club in 2019. I attach the Landmark flood report which states that surface water was ‘moderate’ at the most at that time. Please refer to this link to see that the golf club is now subject to high flood risk and will be worse in a few years to come, even without further development in the local area
https://check-long-term-flood-risk.service.gov.uk/map?easting=439715&northing=357603&map=SurfaceWater
• Site 45841 – Land South of Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland - we have been informed by DCC Floods team that this new development will deliver another 1.71million litres of water per day into our ‘water course', in addition to the 2 million litres of water per day that Katie has been pumping off her property this winter. We are not a water course, we are a golf course that has existed for 50 years next year, for the community to enjoy.
• Site 45904 Land West of Main Road and North of Cross Lane - If this is considered, please also refer to the flood risk link above in that field. I am also concerned that 120 dwellings will require more than one entrance to it currently off Main Road by the allotments. I recommend that Cross Lane and Pit Lane is considered for an upgrade / change of highway category should any development go ahead.
Finally, we would strongly oppose any development upstream to the golf course where we do not receive compensation as the Riparian Landowner in order to cope with extra surface water crossing the Golf Course.
Please do not hesitate to contact the Landlord, *redacted* of Hancock Holdings Ltd on *redacted* for further discussion
Apologies for the slightly late submission of these objections
Re: North East Derbyshire Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation (April 2026)
I am writing as a resident of *redacted* Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland to strongly object to the proposed housing allocations within Shirland and surrounding areas.
My objection is based on direct, ongoing experience of flooding and the clear failure of existing drainage infrastructure following recent development.
________________________________________
Flooding and Drainage Failure
I am currently experiencing severe and ongoing flooding at my property following the Fox Hollies development.
This is not a minor issue — it is having a significant impact on my home and daily life. It is clear that the drainage systems approved as part of that development are not functioning as intended.
Surface water plans referenced watercourses that do not exist in reality. These were not properly checked, and the consequences are now being experienced by residents.
There are also wider issues across the area, including:
• flooding impacting nearby properties such as Gas Cottage
• the local golf course suffering from water issues
• sewage infrastructure already under strain, with sewage currently bursting from pipes along Pit Lane
This demonstrates that the system is already failing.
Given this, I have no confidence that further development will not result in the same issues being repeated.
________________________________________
Site-Specific Objections
Site 45841 – Land South of Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland
This site is of greatest concern given my direct experience and the ongoing issues already affecting my property.
If this development goes ahead, it is clear that millions more litres of water will be displaced downhill, directly impacting existing properties including my own, Gas Cottage, and the golf course. These are not theoretical risks — they are already happening.
The Fox Hollies development has demonstrated that drainage assumptions have been fundamentally flawed, relying on a historic watercourse that has not existed for decades. This highlights a serious lack of verification and oversight within the planning process. It is clear that drainage routes across Hallfieldgate Lane, Pit Lane and the golf course are not fully understood.
How can the risk of a further 90 dwellings be considered acceptable without a full investigation and upgrade of the drainage infrastructure as a minimum?
There are also confirmed sewer capacity failures, with sewage currently bursting from pipes along Pit Lane. This is already unacceptable. The addition of hundreds more residents — including approximately 90 dwellings on this site — would place unsustainable pressure on an already failing system and significantly increase the likelihood of further sewage overflow incidents.
Residents should not be expected to tolerate sewage contamination affecting their homes and surroundings to accommodate further development. Tampons, used toilet roll, actual human excrement have all been found on land, in gardens and on the golf course. Why must existing residents and businesses have actual human faeces in their gardens/land in order for NEDC to meet government housing targets?
This is not just an inconvenience; it presents clear risks to public health, the environment, and quality of life.
In addition:
• Hallfieldgate Lane already suffers from traffic constraints, with sections reduced to single-lane due to parked vehicles
• An additional 90 houses would likely result in 200+ additional vehicle movements, placing significant pressure on a road that is not designed to accommodate this volume
• Local schools are already at capacity and cannot absorb additional demand
• Residents rely on GP services in Alfreton, demonstrating a lack of local provision
• Bus services are unreliable, often cancelled or full, meaning residents cannot depend on public transport
This site represents a clear example of development being proposed in an area where infrastructure has already failed. Allowing further development under these conditions would inevitably lead to more residents experiencing the same issues I am currently facing.
Finally, if Wheeldon Homes are to be the developer, it is deeply concerning that the existing issues arising from Fox Hollies remain unresolved. Until these problems are properly addressed, further development by the same developer should not be permitted. Wheeldon Homes are not part of the Considerate constructors scheme and I think all developments across the district need to have developers who are part of the scheme as a minimum.
________________________________________
Site 45089 – Land at Cross Lane, Shirland (Triangle Field)
This site forms a key and highly visible gateway into the village and is extremely sensitive in terms of landscape and character.
Development here would:
• completely alter the entrance to Shirland
• replace open countryside with a dense and visually intrusive housing estate
• create a development that would appear entirely out of keeping with the existing village
The field itself already floods regularly, and the A61 in this location is well known for surface water issues during periods of rainfall. Development would displace water and increase flood risk both locally and elsewhere.
There are also serious highway safety concerns. The proposed access appears to be onto a 60 mph stretch of the A61, which presents clear risks due to vehicle speeds, limited reaction time, and restricted visibility. Introducing a residential access at this point would be inappropriate and potentially dangerous.
This site also plays an important role in maintaining the separation between Shirland and Alfreton. Development here would significantly reduce that gap and begin to merge the two settlements.
This is particularly concerning given that Alfreton lies within a different district authority, meaning development here would blur both physical and administrative boundaries.
Once this boundary is eroded, it cannot be reinstated.
________________________________________
Site 45207 – Land East of Park Close, Shirland
Residents have already raised concerns that gardens in this area become waterlogged in winter.
Given the failure of drainage systems elsewhere, it is difficult to see how this site could be developed without causing further flooding issues.
There are also existing problems with sewage overflow affecting nearby land and the golf course.
________________________________________
Site 45904 – Land West of Main Road, Shirland
Access to this site would be nothing short of dangerous.
The roads leading to the site are effectively single-track, and any access onto the main road would be unsafe due to limited visibility caused by existing housing.
This site is not suitable for development from a highway safety perspective.
________________________________________
Site 45231 – Land off Pasture Lane, Stonebroom
This site already experiences flooding and contains an old well.
There is a real risk that development here would result in the same situation I am currently experiencing — homes flooding and residents left dealing with the consequences.
________________________________________
Site 45255 – Land to the South of Kingsley Crescent, Stonebroom
This site is an important area of countryside that provides both environmental and social value.
It is home to wildlife and forms part of a natural green space used regularly by local residents, particularly families and children. Many families rely on this space for recreation, exploration, and access to nature.
Development would:
• result in the loss of a valuable wildlife habitat
• remove an important natural drainage area
• eliminate accessible green space for the local community
In addition, this development would extend an existing estate further into the countryside. This area already experiences high levels of deprivation and limited opportunity, and the loss of this open land would remove one of the few accessible and positive environments available to residents.
The impact of losing this space would be significant and long-lasting for the community.
________________________________________
Site 45045 – Land North of Park Lane, Shirland
I am not opposed in principle; however, drainage and sewer infrastructure must be properly assessed and proven before any development takes place.
________________________________________
Objection to the Proposed ‘Shirland Cluster’
I strongly object to the proposal to group Shirland, Stonebroom and Mickley together as a single ‘cluster’.
There is a clear and established divide between these communities, both geographically and in how residents actually live their day-to-day lives:
• Mickley residents predominantly rely on Clay Cross for shops, healthcare and services
• Shirland and Stonebroom residents rely heavily on Alfreton
• There is little to no overlap in how services are accessed between these villages
These are not connected settlements functioning as one community. In reality, they operate as separate villages with different service centres, transport links and infrastructure dependencies.
The proposed clustering approach is therefore fundamentally flawed. It artificially combines facilities across different villages to present a misleading and inflated picture of sustainability.
For example:
• A GP surgery in one village is not realistically accessible or used by residents in another
• Bus routes between these locations are unreliable, frequently cancelled, or not suitable for daily commuting
• Residents do not travel between these villages for routine needs such as schooling, healthcare, or shopping
• Road connections between the villages are limited and not designed to support shared infrastructure use
As a result, the ‘cluster’ concept overstates the availability of services and infrastructure, creating the impression that these locations can support significantly more development than they realistically can.
This approach risks justifying higher housing numbers in settlements that, in isolation, are unsustainable and already under strain.
Planning decisions must be based on how communities function in reality — not on theoretical groupings that do not reflect real-life behaviour.
The ‘cluster’ proposal masks existing infrastructure deficiencies and should not be used as a justification for increased housing allocations.
Conclusion
The issues I am currently experiencing demonstrate the very real risks associated with further development in this area.
Approving additional housing without first resolving these problems would be irresponsible and would expose more residents to the same situation.
This is not a theoretical concern — it is already happening.
I strongly urge the Council to reconsider these proposals.
Attachments:
- 19 03 Flood land report COM_SITEC_CO.pdf (1.74 MB)
Object
NEDDC Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation on the Strategic Approach to the Location of Development and Refined Sites (March 2026)
45841 – Land to the south of Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland
Representation ID: 15072
Received: 01/05/2026
Respondent: Hancock Holdings Ltd
This site is of greatest concern due to direct experience and ongoing issues affecting the respondent’s property. The respondent states that development would displace millions more litres of water downhill, impacting existing properties, including Gas Cottage, and the golf course, and that these issues already exist.
The Fox Hollies development is said to have relied on a historic watercourse that no longer exists, indicating flawed drainage assumptions and lack of verification. Drainage routes across Hallfieldgate Lane, Pit Lane and the golf course are considered not fully understood. The respondent questions how 90 additional dwellings can be acceptable without full investigation and upgrade of drainage infrastructure.
There are confirmed sewer capacity failures, with sewage bursting from pipes along Pit Lane. Additional dwellings would increase pressure on an already failing system and raise the likelihood of further overflow. Sewage contamination, including human waste, has been found on land, in gardens and on the golf course, posing risks to public health, the environment and quality of life.
Further concerns include traffic constraints on Hallfieldgate Lane, limited school capacity, reliance on GP services in Alfreton, and unreliable bus services. Existing unresolved issues linked to Wheeldon Homes are also raised. The respondent has been informed by DCC Floods team that this new development will deliver another 1.71million litres of water per day and mentions that they are a golf course, not a water course. The respondent suggests Severn Trent should have been consulted prior to the release of the proposed sites and strongly oppose any development upstream to the golf course.
Objections from Hancock Holdings Ltd - Landlord of Shirland Golf and Country Club, Pit Lane, Shirland DE55 6AU
I am writing to reiterate Katie Booth’s detailed objections to the Local Plan sites on behalf of Hancock Holdings Ltd.
In addition, we would like to comment that:-
• Severn Trent should have been consulted prior to the release of the proposed sites because many of them may not be suitable due to the current sewage network in and around Shirland. On many occasions, the golf course and Pit Lane neighbours have been subject to burst sewage pipes and the Hallfieldgate Pumping Station overflowing into our streams. If you look at the GIIST plan, you will note that 3 pipes feed into one single pipe at Cllr Heather Liggett’s field which travels to the pumping station.
Only surface water has been considered, not the sewage system.
• We bought the Golf Club in 2019. I attach the Landmark flood report which states that surface water was ‘moderate’ at the most at that time. Please refer to this link to see that the golf club is now subject to high flood risk and will be worse in a few years to come, even without further development in the local area
https://check-long-term-flood-risk.service.gov.uk/map?easting=439715&northing=357603&map=SurfaceWater
• Site 45841 – Land South of Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland - we have been informed by DCC Floods team that this new development will deliver another 1.71million litres of water per day into our ‘water course', in addition to the 2 million litres of water per day that Katie has been pumping off her property this winter. We are not a water course, we are a golf course that has existed for 50 years next year, for the community to enjoy.
• Site 45904 Land West of Main Road and North of Cross Lane - If this is considered, please also refer to the flood risk link above in that field. I am also concerned that 120 dwellings will require more than one entrance to it currently off Main Road by the allotments. I recommend that Cross Lane and Pit Lane is considered for an upgrade / change of highway category should any development go ahead.
Finally, we would strongly oppose any development upstream to the golf course where we do not receive compensation as the Riparian Landowner in order to cope with extra surface water crossing the Golf Course.
Please do not hesitate to contact the Landlord, *redacted* of Hancock Holdings Ltd on *redacted* for further discussion
Apologies for the slightly late submission of these objections
Re: North East Derbyshire Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation (April 2026)
I am writing as a resident of *redacted* Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland to strongly object to the proposed housing allocations within Shirland and surrounding areas.
My objection is based on direct, ongoing experience of flooding and the clear failure of existing drainage infrastructure following recent development.
________________________________________
Flooding and Drainage Failure
I am currently experiencing severe and ongoing flooding at my property following the Fox Hollies development.
This is not a minor issue — it is having a significant impact on my home and daily life. It is clear that the drainage systems approved as part of that development are not functioning as intended.
Surface water plans referenced watercourses that do not exist in reality. These were not properly checked, and the consequences are now being experienced by residents.
There are also wider issues across the area, including:
• flooding impacting nearby properties such as Gas Cottage
• the local golf course suffering from water issues
• sewage infrastructure already under strain, with sewage currently bursting from pipes along Pit Lane
This demonstrates that the system is already failing.
Given this, I have no confidence that further development will not result in the same issues being repeated.
________________________________________
Site-Specific Objections
Site 45841 – Land South of Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland
This site is of greatest concern given my direct experience and the ongoing issues already affecting my property.
If this development goes ahead, it is clear that millions more litres of water will be displaced downhill, directly impacting existing properties including my own, Gas Cottage, and the golf course. These are not theoretical risks — they are already happening.
The Fox Hollies development has demonstrated that drainage assumptions have been fundamentally flawed, relying on a historic watercourse that has not existed for decades. This highlights a serious lack of verification and oversight within the planning process. It is clear that drainage routes across Hallfieldgate Lane, Pit Lane and the golf course are not fully understood.
How can the risk of a further 90 dwellings be considered acceptable without a full investigation and upgrade of the drainage infrastructure as a minimum?
There are also confirmed sewer capacity failures, with sewage currently bursting from pipes along Pit Lane. This is already unacceptable. The addition of hundreds more residents — including approximately 90 dwellings on this site — would place unsustainable pressure on an already failing system and significantly increase the likelihood of further sewage overflow incidents.
Residents should not be expected to tolerate sewage contamination affecting their homes and surroundings to accommodate further development. Tampons, used toilet roll, actual human excrement have all been found on land, in gardens and on the golf course. Why must existing residents and businesses have actual human faeces in their gardens/land in order for NEDC to meet government housing targets?
This is not just an inconvenience; it presents clear risks to public health, the environment, and quality of life.
In addition:
• Hallfieldgate Lane already suffers from traffic constraints, with sections reduced to single-lane due to parked vehicles
• An additional 90 houses would likely result in 200+ additional vehicle movements, placing significant pressure on a road that is not designed to accommodate this volume
• Local schools are already at capacity and cannot absorb additional demand
• Residents rely on GP services in Alfreton, demonstrating a lack of local provision
• Bus services are unreliable, often cancelled or full, meaning residents cannot depend on public transport
This site represents a clear example of development being proposed in an area where infrastructure has already failed. Allowing further development under these conditions would inevitably lead to more residents experiencing the same issues I am currently facing.
Finally, if Wheeldon Homes are to be the developer, it is deeply concerning that the existing issues arising from Fox Hollies remain unresolved. Until these problems are properly addressed, further development by the same developer should not be permitted. Wheeldon Homes are not part of the Considerate constructors scheme and I think all developments across the district need to have developers who are part of the scheme as a minimum.
________________________________________
Site 45089 – Land at Cross Lane, Shirland (Triangle Field)
This site forms a key and highly visible gateway into the village and is extremely sensitive in terms of landscape and character.
Development here would:
• completely alter the entrance to Shirland
• replace open countryside with a dense and visually intrusive housing estate
• create a development that would appear entirely out of keeping with the existing village
The field itself already floods regularly, and the A61 in this location is well known for surface water issues during periods of rainfall. Development would displace water and increase flood risk both locally and elsewhere.
There are also serious highway safety concerns. The proposed access appears to be onto a 60 mph stretch of the A61, which presents clear risks due to vehicle speeds, limited reaction time, and restricted visibility. Introducing a residential access at this point would be inappropriate and potentially dangerous.
This site also plays an important role in maintaining the separation between Shirland and Alfreton. Development here would significantly reduce that gap and begin to merge the two settlements.
This is particularly concerning given that Alfreton lies within a different district authority, meaning development here would blur both physical and administrative boundaries.
Once this boundary is eroded, it cannot be reinstated.
________________________________________
Site 45207 – Land East of Park Close, Shirland
Residents have already raised concerns that gardens in this area become waterlogged in winter.
Given the failure of drainage systems elsewhere, it is difficult to see how this site could be developed without causing further flooding issues.
There are also existing problems with sewage overflow affecting nearby land and the golf course.
________________________________________
Site 45904 – Land West of Main Road, Shirland
Access to this site would be nothing short of dangerous.
The roads leading to the site are effectively single-track, and any access onto the main road would be unsafe due to limited visibility caused by existing housing.
This site is not suitable for development from a highway safety perspective.
________________________________________
Site 45231 – Land off Pasture Lane, Stonebroom
This site already experiences flooding and contains an old well.
There is a real risk that development here would result in the same situation I am currently experiencing — homes flooding and residents left dealing with the consequences.
________________________________________
Site 45255 – Land to the South of Kingsley Crescent, Stonebroom
This site is an important area of countryside that provides both environmental and social value.
It is home to wildlife and forms part of a natural green space used regularly by local residents, particularly families and children. Many families rely on this space for recreation, exploration, and access to nature.
Development would:
• result in the loss of a valuable wildlife habitat
• remove an important natural drainage area
• eliminate accessible green space for the local community
In addition, this development would extend an existing estate further into the countryside. This area already experiences high levels of deprivation and limited opportunity, and the loss of this open land would remove one of the few accessible and positive environments available to residents.
The impact of losing this space would be significant and long-lasting for the community.
________________________________________
Site 45045 – Land North of Park Lane, Shirland
I am not opposed in principle; however, drainage and sewer infrastructure must be properly assessed and proven before any development takes place.
________________________________________
Objection to the Proposed ‘Shirland Cluster’
I strongly object to the proposal to group Shirland, Stonebroom and Mickley together as a single ‘cluster’.
There is a clear and established divide between these communities, both geographically and in how residents actually live their day-to-day lives:
• Mickley residents predominantly rely on Clay Cross for shops, healthcare and services
• Shirland and Stonebroom residents rely heavily on Alfreton
• There is little to no overlap in how services are accessed between these villages
These are not connected settlements functioning as one community. In reality, they operate as separate villages with different service centres, transport links and infrastructure dependencies.
The proposed clustering approach is therefore fundamentally flawed. It artificially combines facilities across different villages to present a misleading and inflated picture of sustainability.
For example:
• A GP surgery in one village is not realistically accessible or used by residents in another
• Bus routes between these locations are unreliable, frequently cancelled, or not suitable for daily commuting
• Residents do not travel between these villages for routine needs such as schooling, healthcare, or shopping
• Road connections between the villages are limited and not designed to support shared infrastructure use
As a result, the ‘cluster’ concept overstates the availability of services and infrastructure, creating the impression that these locations can support significantly more development than they realistically can.
This approach risks justifying higher housing numbers in settlements that, in isolation, are unsustainable and already under strain.
Planning decisions must be based on how communities function in reality — not on theoretical groupings that do not reflect real-life behaviour.
The ‘cluster’ proposal masks existing infrastructure deficiencies and should not be used as a justification for increased housing allocations.
Conclusion
The issues I am currently experiencing demonstrate the very real risks associated with further development in this area.
Approving additional housing without first resolving these problems would be irresponsible and would expose more residents to the same situation.
This is not a theoretical concern — it is already happening.
I strongly urge the Council to reconsider these proposals.
Attachments:
- 19 03 Flood land report COM_SITEC_CO.pdf (1.74 MB)
Object
NEDDC Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation on the Strategic Approach to the Location of Development and Refined Sites (March 2026)
45089 – Land at Cross Lane, Shirland
Representation ID: 15073
Received: 01/05/2026
Respondent: Hancock Holdings Ltd
This site forms a key and highly visible gateway into the village and is extremely sensitive in terms of landscape and character.
Development here would:
• completely alter the entrance to Shirland
• replace open countryside with a dense and visually intrusive housing estate
• create a development that would appear entirely out of keeping with the existing village
The field itself already floods regularly, and the A61 in this location is well known for surface water issues during periods of rainfall. Development would displace water and increase flood risk both locally and elsewhere.
There are also serious highway safety concerns. The proposed access appears to be onto a 60 mph stretch of the A61, which presents clear risks due to vehicle speeds, limited reaction time, and restricted visibility. Introducing a residential access at this point would be inappropriate and potentially dangerous.
This site also plays an important role in maintaining the separation between Shirland and Alfreton. Development here would significantly reduce that gap and begin to merge the two settlements.
This is particularly concerning given that Alfreton lies within a different district authority, meaning development here would blur both physical and administrative boundaries.
Once this boundary is eroded, it cannot be reinstated.
The respondent suggests Severn Trent should have been consulted prior to the release of the proposed sites and strongly oppose any development upstream to the golf course.
Objections from Hancock Holdings Ltd - Landlord of Shirland Golf and Country Club, Pit Lane, Shirland DE55 6AU
I am writing to reiterate Katie Booth’s detailed objections to the Local Plan sites on behalf of Hancock Holdings Ltd.
In addition, we would like to comment that:-
• Severn Trent should have been consulted prior to the release of the proposed sites because many of them may not be suitable due to the current sewage network in and around Shirland. On many occasions, the golf course and Pit Lane neighbours have been subject to burst sewage pipes and the Hallfieldgate Pumping Station overflowing into our streams. If you look at the GIIST plan, you will note that 3 pipes feed into one single pipe at Cllr Heather Liggett’s field which travels to the pumping station.
Only surface water has been considered, not the sewage system.
• We bought the Golf Club in 2019. I attach the Landmark flood report which states that surface water was ‘moderate’ at the most at that time. Please refer to this link to see that the golf club is now subject to high flood risk and will be worse in a few years to come, even without further development in the local area
https://check-long-term-flood-risk.service.gov.uk/map?easting=439715&northing=357603&map=SurfaceWater
• Site 45841 – Land South of Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland - we have been informed by DCC Floods team that this new development will deliver another 1.71million litres of water per day into our ‘water course', in addition to the 2 million litres of water per day that Katie has been pumping off her property this winter. We are not a water course, we are a golf course that has existed for 50 years next year, for the community to enjoy.
• Site 45904 Land West of Main Road and North of Cross Lane - If this is considered, please also refer to the flood risk link above in that field. I am also concerned that 120 dwellings will require more than one entrance to it currently off Main Road by the allotments. I recommend that Cross Lane and Pit Lane is considered for an upgrade / change of highway category should any development go ahead.
Finally, we would strongly oppose any development upstream to the golf course where we do not receive compensation as the Riparian Landowner in order to cope with extra surface water crossing the Golf Course.
Please do not hesitate to contact the Landlord, *redacted* of Hancock Holdings Ltd on *redacted* for further discussion
Apologies for the slightly late submission of these objections
Re: North East Derbyshire Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation (April 2026)
I am writing as a resident of *redacted* Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland to strongly object to the proposed housing allocations within Shirland and surrounding areas.
My objection is based on direct, ongoing experience of flooding and the clear failure of existing drainage infrastructure following recent development.
________________________________________
Flooding and Drainage Failure
I am currently experiencing severe and ongoing flooding at my property following the Fox Hollies development.
This is not a minor issue — it is having a significant impact on my home and daily life. It is clear that the drainage systems approved as part of that development are not functioning as intended.
Surface water plans referenced watercourses that do not exist in reality. These were not properly checked, and the consequences are now being experienced by residents.
There are also wider issues across the area, including:
• flooding impacting nearby properties such as Gas Cottage
• the local golf course suffering from water issues
• sewage infrastructure already under strain, with sewage currently bursting from pipes along Pit Lane
This demonstrates that the system is already failing.
Given this, I have no confidence that further development will not result in the same issues being repeated.
________________________________________
Site-Specific Objections
Site 45841 – Land South of Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland
This site is of greatest concern given my direct experience and the ongoing issues already affecting my property.
If this development goes ahead, it is clear that millions more litres of water will be displaced downhill, directly impacting existing properties including my own, Gas Cottage, and the golf course. These are not theoretical risks — they are already happening.
The Fox Hollies development has demonstrated that drainage assumptions have been fundamentally flawed, relying on a historic watercourse that has not existed for decades. This highlights a serious lack of verification and oversight within the planning process. It is clear that drainage routes across Hallfieldgate Lane, Pit Lane and the golf course are not fully understood.
How can the risk of a further 90 dwellings be considered acceptable without a full investigation and upgrade of the drainage infrastructure as a minimum?
There are also confirmed sewer capacity failures, with sewage currently bursting from pipes along Pit Lane. This is already unacceptable. The addition of hundreds more residents — including approximately 90 dwellings on this site — would place unsustainable pressure on an already failing system and significantly increase the likelihood of further sewage overflow incidents.
Residents should not be expected to tolerate sewage contamination affecting their homes and surroundings to accommodate further development. Tampons, used toilet roll, actual human excrement have all been found on land, in gardens and on the golf course. Why must existing residents and businesses have actual human faeces in their gardens/land in order for NEDC to meet government housing targets?
This is not just an inconvenience; it presents clear risks to public health, the environment, and quality of life.
In addition:
• Hallfieldgate Lane already suffers from traffic constraints, with sections reduced to single-lane due to parked vehicles
• An additional 90 houses would likely result in 200+ additional vehicle movements, placing significant pressure on a road that is not designed to accommodate this volume
• Local schools are already at capacity and cannot absorb additional demand
• Residents rely on GP services in Alfreton, demonstrating a lack of local provision
• Bus services are unreliable, often cancelled or full, meaning residents cannot depend on public transport
This site represents a clear example of development being proposed in an area where infrastructure has already failed. Allowing further development under these conditions would inevitably lead to more residents experiencing the same issues I am currently facing.
Finally, if Wheeldon Homes are to be the developer, it is deeply concerning that the existing issues arising from Fox Hollies remain unresolved. Until these problems are properly addressed, further development by the same developer should not be permitted. Wheeldon Homes are not part of the Considerate constructors scheme and I think all developments across the district need to have developers who are part of the scheme as a minimum.
________________________________________
Site 45089 – Land at Cross Lane, Shirland (Triangle Field)
This site forms a key and highly visible gateway into the village and is extremely sensitive in terms of landscape and character.
Development here would:
• completely alter the entrance to Shirland
• replace open countryside with a dense and visually intrusive housing estate
• create a development that would appear entirely out of keeping with the existing village
The field itself already floods regularly, and the A61 in this location is well known for surface water issues during periods of rainfall. Development would displace water and increase flood risk both locally and elsewhere.
There are also serious highway safety concerns. The proposed access appears to be onto a 60 mph stretch of the A61, which presents clear risks due to vehicle speeds, limited reaction time, and restricted visibility. Introducing a residential access at this point would be inappropriate and potentially dangerous.
This site also plays an important role in maintaining the separation between Shirland and Alfreton. Development here would significantly reduce that gap and begin to merge the two settlements.
This is particularly concerning given that Alfreton lies within a different district authority, meaning development here would blur both physical and administrative boundaries.
Once this boundary is eroded, it cannot be reinstated.
________________________________________
Site 45207 – Land East of Park Close, Shirland
Residents have already raised concerns that gardens in this area become waterlogged in winter.
Given the failure of drainage systems elsewhere, it is difficult to see how this site could be developed without causing further flooding issues.
There are also existing problems with sewage overflow affecting nearby land and the golf course.
________________________________________
Site 45904 – Land West of Main Road, Shirland
Access to this site would be nothing short of dangerous.
The roads leading to the site are effectively single-track, and any access onto the main road would be unsafe due to limited visibility caused by existing housing.
This site is not suitable for development from a highway safety perspective.
________________________________________
Site 45231 – Land off Pasture Lane, Stonebroom
This site already experiences flooding and contains an old well.
There is a real risk that development here would result in the same situation I am currently experiencing — homes flooding and residents left dealing with the consequences.
________________________________________
Site 45255 – Land to the South of Kingsley Crescent, Stonebroom
This site is an important area of countryside that provides both environmental and social value.
It is home to wildlife and forms part of a natural green space used regularly by local residents, particularly families and children. Many families rely on this space for recreation, exploration, and access to nature.
Development would:
• result in the loss of a valuable wildlife habitat
• remove an important natural drainage area
• eliminate accessible green space for the local community
In addition, this development would extend an existing estate further into the countryside. This area already experiences high levels of deprivation and limited opportunity, and the loss of this open land would remove one of the few accessible and positive environments available to residents.
The impact of losing this space would be significant and long-lasting for the community.
________________________________________
Site 45045 – Land North of Park Lane, Shirland
I am not opposed in principle; however, drainage and sewer infrastructure must be properly assessed and proven before any development takes place.
________________________________________
Objection to the Proposed ‘Shirland Cluster’
I strongly object to the proposal to group Shirland, Stonebroom and Mickley together as a single ‘cluster’.
There is a clear and established divide between these communities, both geographically and in how residents actually live their day-to-day lives:
• Mickley residents predominantly rely on Clay Cross for shops, healthcare and services
• Shirland and Stonebroom residents rely heavily on Alfreton
• There is little to no overlap in how services are accessed between these villages
These are not connected settlements functioning as one community. In reality, they operate as separate villages with different service centres, transport links and infrastructure dependencies.
The proposed clustering approach is therefore fundamentally flawed. It artificially combines facilities across different villages to present a misleading and inflated picture of sustainability.
For example:
• A GP surgery in one village is not realistically accessible or used by residents in another
• Bus routes between these locations are unreliable, frequently cancelled, or not suitable for daily commuting
• Residents do not travel between these villages for routine needs such as schooling, healthcare, or shopping
• Road connections between the villages are limited and not designed to support shared infrastructure use
As a result, the ‘cluster’ concept overstates the availability of services and infrastructure, creating the impression that these locations can support significantly more development than they realistically can.
This approach risks justifying higher housing numbers in settlements that, in isolation, are unsustainable and already under strain.
Planning decisions must be based on how communities function in reality — not on theoretical groupings that do not reflect real-life behaviour.
The ‘cluster’ proposal masks existing infrastructure deficiencies and should not be used as a justification for increased housing allocations.
Conclusion
The issues I am currently experiencing demonstrate the very real risks associated with further development in this area.
Approving additional housing without first resolving these problems would be irresponsible and would expose more residents to the same situation.
This is not a theoretical concern — it is already happening.
I strongly urge the Council to reconsider these proposals.
Attachments:
- 19 03 Flood land report COM_SITEC_CO.pdf (1.74 MB)
Object
NEDDC Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation on the Strategic Approach to the Location of Development and Refined Sites (March 2026)
45207 – Land east of Park Close, Park Lane, Shirland
Representation ID: 15074
Received: 01/05/2026
Respondent: Hancock Holdings Ltd
Residents have already raised concerns that gardens in this area become waterlogged in winter.
Given the failure of drainage systems elsewhere, it is difficult to see how this site could be developed without causing further flooding issues.
There are also existing problems with sewage overflow affecting nearby land and the golf course.
The respondent suggests Severn Trent should have been consulted prior to the release of the proposed sites and strongly oppose any development upstream to the golf course.
Objections from Hancock Holdings Ltd - Landlord of Shirland Golf and Country Club, Pit Lane, Shirland DE55 6AU
I am writing to reiterate Katie Booth’s detailed objections to the Local Plan sites on behalf of Hancock Holdings Ltd.
In addition, we would like to comment that:-
• Severn Trent should have been consulted prior to the release of the proposed sites because many of them may not be suitable due to the current sewage network in and around Shirland. On many occasions, the golf course and Pit Lane neighbours have been subject to burst sewage pipes and the Hallfieldgate Pumping Station overflowing into our streams. If you look at the GIIST plan, you will note that 3 pipes feed into one single pipe at Cllr Heather Liggett’s field which travels to the pumping station.
Only surface water has been considered, not the sewage system.
• We bought the Golf Club in 2019. I attach the Landmark flood report which states that surface water was ‘moderate’ at the most at that time. Please refer to this link to see that the golf club is now subject to high flood risk and will be worse in a few years to come, even without further development in the local area
https://check-long-term-flood-risk.service.gov.uk/map?easting=439715&northing=357603&map=SurfaceWater
• Site 45841 – Land South of Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland - we have been informed by DCC Floods team that this new development will deliver another 1.71million litres of water per day into our ‘water course', in addition to the 2 million litres of water per day that Katie has been pumping off her property this winter. We are not a water course, we are a golf course that has existed for 50 years next year, for the community to enjoy.
• Site 45904 Land West of Main Road and North of Cross Lane - If this is considered, please also refer to the flood risk link above in that field. I am also concerned that 120 dwellings will require more than one entrance to it currently off Main Road by the allotments. I recommend that Cross Lane and Pit Lane is considered for an upgrade / change of highway category should any development go ahead.
Finally, we would strongly oppose any development upstream to the golf course where we do not receive compensation as the Riparian Landowner in order to cope with extra surface water crossing the Golf Course.
Please do not hesitate to contact the Landlord, *redacted* of Hancock Holdings Ltd on *redacted* for further discussion
Apologies for the slightly late submission of these objections
Re: North East Derbyshire Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation (April 2026)
I am writing as a resident of *redacted* Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland to strongly object to the proposed housing allocations within Shirland and surrounding areas.
My objection is based on direct, ongoing experience of flooding and the clear failure of existing drainage infrastructure following recent development.
________________________________________
Flooding and Drainage Failure
I am currently experiencing severe and ongoing flooding at my property following the Fox Hollies development.
This is not a minor issue — it is having a significant impact on my home and daily life. It is clear that the drainage systems approved as part of that development are not functioning as intended.
Surface water plans referenced watercourses that do not exist in reality. These were not properly checked, and the consequences are now being experienced by residents.
There are also wider issues across the area, including:
• flooding impacting nearby properties such as Gas Cottage
• the local golf course suffering from water issues
• sewage infrastructure already under strain, with sewage currently bursting from pipes along Pit Lane
This demonstrates that the system is already failing.
Given this, I have no confidence that further development will not result in the same issues being repeated.
________________________________________
Site-Specific Objections
Site 45841 – Land South of Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland
This site is of greatest concern given my direct experience and the ongoing issues already affecting my property.
If this development goes ahead, it is clear that millions more litres of water will be displaced downhill, directly impacting existing properties including my own, Gas Cottage, and the golf course. These are not theoretical risks — they are already happening.
The Fox Hollies development has demonstrated that drainage assumptions have been fundamentally flawed, relying on a historic watercourse that has not existed for decades. This highlights a serious lack of verification and oversight within the planning process. It is clear that drainage routes across Hallfieldgate Lane, Pit Lane and the golf course are not fully understood.
How can the risk of a further 90 dwellings be considered acceptable without a full investigation and upgrade of the drainage infrastructure as a minimum?
There are also confirmed sewer capacity failures, with sewage currently bursting from pipes along Pit Lane. This is already unacceptable. The addition of hundreds more residents — including approximately 90 dwellings on this site — would place unsustainable pressure on an already failing system and significantly increase the likelihood of further sewage overflow incidents.
Residents should not be expected to tolerate sewage contamination affecting their homes and surroundings to accommodate further development. Tampons, used toilet roll, actual human excrement have all been found on land, in gardens and on the golf course. Why must existing residents and businesses have actual human faeces in their gardens/land in order for NEDC to meet government housing targets?
This is not just an inconvenience; it presents clear risks to public health, the environment, and quality of life.
In addition:
• Hallfieldgate Lane already suffers from traffic constraints, with sections reduced to single-lane due to parked vehicles
• An additional 90 houses would likely result in 200+ additional vehicle movements, placing significant pressure on a road that is not designed to accommodate this volume
• Local schools are already at capacity and cannot absorb additional demand
• Residents rely on GP services in Alfreton, demonstrating a lack of local provision
• Bus services are unreliable, often cancelled or full, meaning residents cannot depend on public transport
This site represents a clear example of development being proposed in an area where infrastructure has already failed. Allowing further development under these conditions would inevitably lead to more residents experiencing the same issues I am currently facing.
Finally, if Wheeldon Homes are to be the developer, it is deeply concerning that the existing issues arising from Fox Hollies remain unresolved. Until these problems are properly addressed, further development by the same developer should not be permitted. Wheeldon Homes are not part of the Considerate constructors scheme and I think all developments across the district need to have developers who are part of the scheme as a minimum.
________________________________________
Site 45089 – Land at Cross Lane, Shirland (Triangle Field)
This site forms a key and highly visible gateway into the village and is extremely sensitive in terms of landscape and character.
Development here would:
• completely alter the entrance to Shirland
• replace open countryside with a dense and visually intrusive housing estate
• create a development that would appear entirely out of keeping with the existing village
The field itself already floods regularly, and the A61 in this location is well known for surface water issues during periods of rainfall. Development would displace water and increase flood risk both locally and elsewhere.
There are also serious highway safety concerns. The proposed access appears to be onto a 60 mph stretch of the A61, which presents clear risks due to vehicle speeds, limited reaction time, and restricted visibility. Introducing a residential access at this point would be inappropriate and potentially dangerous.
This site also plays an important role in maintaining the separation between Shirland and Alfreton. Development here would significantly reduce that gap and begin to merge the two settlements.
This is particularly concerning given that Alfreton lies within a different district authority, meaning development here would blur both physical and administrative boundaries.
Once this boundary is eroded, it cannot be reinstated.
________________________________________
Site 45207 – Land East of Park Close, Shirland
Residents have already raised concerns that gardens in this area become waterlogged in winter.
Given the failure of drainage systems elsewhere, it is difficult to see how this site could be developed without causing further flooding issues.
There are also existing problems with sewage overflow affecting nearby land and the golf course.
________________________________________
Site 45904 – Land West of Main Road, Shirland
Access to this site would be nothing short of dangerous.
The roads leading to the site are effectively single-track, and any access onto the main road would be unsafe due to limited visibility caused by existing housing.
This site is not suitable for development from a highway safety perspective.
________________________________________
Site 45231 – Land off Pasture Lane, Stonebroom
This site already experiences flooding and contains an old well.
There is a real risk that development here would result in the same situation I am currently experiencing — homes flooding and residents left dealing with the consequences.
________________________________________
Site 45255 – Land to the South of Kingsley Crescent, Stonebroom
This site is an important area of countryside that provides both environmental and social value.
It is home to wildlife and forms part of a natural green space used regularly by local residents, particularly families and children. Many families rely on this space for recreation, exploration, and access to nature.
Development would:
• result in the loss of a valuable wildlife habitat
• remove an important natural drainage area
• eliminate accessible green space for the local community
In addition, this development would extend an existing estate further into the countryside. This area already experiences high levels of deprivation and limited opportunity, and the loss of this open land would remove one of the few accessible and positive environments available to residents.
The impact of losing this space would be significant and long-lasting for the community.
________________________________________
Site 45045 – Land North of Park Lane, Shirland
I am not opposed in principle; however, drainage and sewer infrastructure must be properly assessed and proven before any development takes place.
________________________________________
Objection to the Proposed ‘Shirland Cluster’
I strongly object to the proposal to group Shirland, Stonebroom and Mickley together as a single ‘cluster’.
There is a clear and established divide between these communities, both geographically and in how residents actually live their day-to-day lives:
• Mickley residents predominantly rely on Clay Cross for shops, healthcare and services
• Shirland and Stonebroom residents rely heavily on Alfreton
• There is little to no overlap in how services are accessed between these villages
These are not connected settlements functioning as one community. In reality, they operate as separate villages with different service centres, transport links and infrastructure dependencies.
The proposed clustering approach is therefore fundamentally flawed. It artificially combines facilities across different villages to present a misleading and inflated picture of sustainability.
For example:
• A GP surgery in one village is not realistically accessible or used by residents in another
• Bus routes between these locations are unreliable, frequently cancelled, or not suitable for daily commuting
• Residents do not travel between these villages for routine needs such as schooling, healthcare, or shopping
• Road connections between the villages are limited and not designed to support shared infrastructure use
As a result, the ‘cluster’ concept overstates the availability of services and infrastructure, creating the impression that these locations can support significantly more development than they realistically can.
This approach risks justifying higher housing numbers in settlements that, in isolation, are unsustainable and already under strain.
Planning decisions must be based on how communities function in reality — not on theoretical groupings that do not reflect real-life behaviour.
The ‘cluster’ proposal masks existing infrastructure deficiencies and should not be used as a justification for increased housing allocations.
Conclusion
The issues I am currently experiencing demonstrate the very real risks associated with further development in this area.
Approving additional housing without first resolving these problems would be irresponsible and would expose more residents to the same situation.
This is not a theoretical concern — it is already happening.
I strongly urge the Council to reconsider these proposals.
Attachments:
- 19 03 Flood land report COM_SITEC_CO.pdf (1.74 MB)
Object
NEDDC Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation on the Strategic Approach to the Location of Development and Refined Sites (March 2026)
45904 – Land West of Main Road and North of Cross Lane, Shirland
Representation ID: 15075
Received: 01/05/2026
Respondent: Hancock Holdings Ltd
Access to this site would be nothing short of dangerous.
The roads leading to the site are effectively single-track, and any access onto the main road would be unsafe due to limited visibility caused by existing housing. This site is not suitable for development from a highway safety perspective. The respondent considers that 120 dwellings would require more than one entrance. The respondent recommends that Cross Lane and Pit Lane is considered for an upgrade/change of highway category should any development go ahead. The respondent suggests Severn Trent should have been consulted prior to the release of the proposed sites and strongly oppose any development upstream to the golf course.
Objections from Hancock Holdings Ltd - Landlord of Shirland Golf and Country Club, Pit Lane, Shirland DE55 6AU
I am writing to reiterate Katie Booth’s detailed objections to the Local Plan sites on behalf of Hancock Holdings Ltd.
In addition, we would like to comment that:-
• Severn Trent should have been consulted prior to the release of the proposed sites because many of them may not be suitable due to the current sewage network in and around Shirland. On many occasions, the golf course and Pit Lane neighbours have been subject to burst sewage pipes and the Hallfieldgate Pumping Station overflowing into our streams. If you look at the GIIST plan, you will note that 3 pipes feed into one single pipe at Cllr Heather Liggett’s field which travels to the pumping station.
Only surface water has been considered, not the sewage system.
• We bought the Golf Club in 2019. I attach the Landmark flood report which states that surface water was ‘moderate’ at the most at that time. Please refer to this link to see that the golf club is now subject to high flood risk and will be worse in a few years to come, even without further development in the local area
https://check-long-term-flood-risk.service.gov.uk/map?easting=439715&northing=357603&map=SurfaceWater
• Site 45841 – Land South of Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland - we have been informed by DCC Floods team that this new development will deliver another 1.71million litres of water per day into our ‘water course', in addition to the 2 million litres of water per day that Katie has been pumping off her property this winter. We are not a water course, we are a golf course that has existed for 50 years next year, for the community to enjoy.
• Site 45904 Land West of Main Road and North of Cross Lane - If this is considered, please also refer to the flood risk link above in that field. I am also concerned that 120 dwellings will require more than one entrance to it currently off Main Road by the allotments. I recommend that Cross Lane and Pit Lane is considered for an upgrade / change of highway category should any development go ahead.
Finally, we would strongly oppose any development upstream to the golf course where we do not receive compensation as the Riparian Landowner in order to cope with extra surface water crossing the Golf Course.
Please do not hesitate to contact the Landlord, *redacted* of Hancock Holdings Ltd on *redacted* for further discussion
Apologies for the slightly late submission of these objections
Re: North East Derbyshire Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation (April 2026)
I am writing as a resident of *redacted* Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland to strongly object to the proposed housing allocations within Shirland and surrounding areas.
My objection is based on direct, ongoing experience of flooding and the clear failure of existing drainage infrastructure following recent development.
________________________________________
Flooding and Drainage Failure
I am currently experiencing severe and ongoing flooding at my property following the Fox Hollies development.
This is not a minor issue — it is having a significant impact on my home and daily life. It is clear that the drainage systems approved as part of that development are not functioning as intended.
Surface water plans referenced watercourses that do not exist in reality. These were not properly checked, and the consequences are now being experienced by residents.
There are also wider issues across the area, including:
• flooding impacting nearby properties such as Gas Cottage
• the local golf course suffering from water issues
• sewage infrastructure already under strain, with sewage currently bursting from pipes along Pit Lane
This demonstrates that the system is already failing.
Given this, I have no confidence that further development will not result in the same issues being repeated.
________________________________________
Site-Specific Objections
Site 45841 – Land South of Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland
This site is of greatest concern given my direct experience and the ongoing issues already affecting my property.
If this development goes ahead, it is clear that millions more litres of water will be displaced downhill, directly impacting existing properties including my own, Gas Cottage, and the golf course. These are not theoretical risks — they are already happening.
The Fox Hollies development has demonstrated that drainage assumptions have been fundamentally flawed, relying on a historic watercourse that has not existed for decades. This highlights a serious lack of verification and oversight within the planning process. It is clear that drainage routes across Hallfieldgate Lane, Pit Lane and the golf course are not fully understood.
How can the risk of a further 90 dwellings be considered acceptable without a full investigation and upgrade of the drainage infrastructure as a minimum?
There are also confirmed sewer capacity failures, with sewage currently bursting from pipes along Pit Lane. This is already unacceptable. The addition of hundreds more residents — including approximately 90 dwellings on this site — would place unsustainable pressure on an already failing system and significantly increase the likelihood of further sewage overflow incidents.
Residents should not be expected to tolerate sewage contamination affecting their homes and surroundings to accommodate further development. Tampons, used toilet roll, actual human excrement have all been found on land, in gardens and on the golf course. Why must existing residents and businesses have actual human faeces in their gardens/land in order for NEDC to meet government housing targets?
This is not just an inconvenience; it presents clear risks to public health, the environment, and quality of life.
In addition:
• Hallfieldgate Lane already suffers from traffic constraints, with sections reduced to single-lane due to parked vehicles
• An additional 90 houses would likely result in 200+ additional vehicle movements, placing significant pressure on a road that is not designed to accommodate this volume
• Local schools are already at capacity and cannot absorb additional demand
• Residents rely on GP services in Alfreton, demonstrating a lack of local provision
• Bus services are unreliable, often cancelled or full, meaning residents cannot depend on public transport
This site represents a clear example of development being proposed in an area where infrastructure has already failed. Allowing further development under these conditions would inevitably lead to more residents experiencing the same issues I am currently facing.
Finally, if Wheeldon Homes are to be the developer, it is deeply concerning that the existing issues arising from Fox Hollies remain unresolved. Until these problems are properly addressed, further development by the same developer should not be permitted. Wheeldon Homes are not part of the Considerate constructors scheme and I think all developments across the district need to have developers who are part of the scheme as a minimum.
________________________________________
Site 45089 – Land at Cross Lane, Shirland (Triangle Field)
This site forms a key and highly visible gateway into the village and is extremely sensitive in terms of landscape and character.
Development here would:
• completely alter the entrance to Shirland
• replace open countryside with a dense and visually intrusive housing estate
• create a development that would appear entirely out of keeping with the existing village
The field itself already floods regularly, and the A61 in this location is well known for surface water issues during periods of rainfall. Development would displace water and increase flood risk both locally and elsewhere.
There are also serious highway safety concerns. The proposed access appears to be onto a 60 mph stretch of the A61, which presents clear risks due to vehicle speeds, limited reaction time, and restricted visibility. Introducing a residential access at this point would be inappropriate and potentially dangerous.
This site also plays an important role in maintaining the separation between Shirland and Alfreton. Development here would significantly reduce that gap and begin to merge the two settlements.
This is particularly concerning given that Alfreton lies within a different district authority, meaning development here would blur both physical and administrative boundaries.
Once this boundary is eroded, it cannot be reinstated.
________________________________________
Site 45207 – Land East of Park Close, Shirland
Residents have already raised concerns that gardens in this area become waterlogged in winter.
Given the failure of drainage systems elsewhere, it is difficult to see how this site could be developed without causing further flooding issues.
There are also existing problems with sewage overflow affecting nearby land and the golf course.
________________________________________
Site 45904 – Land West of Main Road, Shirland
Access to this site would be nothing short of dangerous.
The roads leading to the site are effectively single-track, and any access onto the main road would be unsafe due to limited visibility caused by existing housing.
This site is not suitable for development from a highway safety perspective.
________________________________________
Site 45231 – Land off Pasture Lane, Stonebroom
This site already experiences flooding and contains an old well.
There is a real risk that development here would result in the same situation I am currently experiencing — homes flooding and residents left dealing with the consequences.
________________________________________
Site 45255 – Land to the South of Kingsley Crescent, Stonebroom
This site is an important area of countryside that provides both environmental and social value.
It is home to wildlife and forms part of a natural green space used regularly by local residents, particularly families and children. Many families rely on this space for recreation, exploration, and access to nature.
Development would:
• result in the loss of a valuable wildlife habitat
• remove an important natural drainage area
• eliminate accessible green space for the local community
In addition, this development would extend an existing estate further into the countryside. This area already experiences high levels of deprivation and limited opportunity, and the loss of this open land would remove one of the few accessible and positive environments available to residents.
The impact of losing this space would be significant and long-lasting for the community.
________________________________________
Site 45045 – Land North of Park Lane, Shirland
I am not opposed in principle; however, drainage and sewer infrastructure must be properly assessed and proven before any development takes place.
________________________________________
Objection to the Proposed ‘Shirland Cluster’
I strongly object to the proposal to group Shirland, Stonebroom and Mickley together as a single ‘cluster’.
There is a clear and established divide between these communities, both geographically and in how residents actually live their day-to-day lives:
• Mickley residents predominantly rely on Clay Cross for shops, healthcare and services
• Shirland and Stonebroom residents rely heavily on Alfreton
• There is little to no overlap in how services are accessed between these villages
These are not connected settlements functioning as one community. In reality, they operate as separate villages with different service centres, transport links and infrastructure dependencies.
The proposed clustering approach is therefore fundamentally flawed. It artificially combines facilities across different villages to present a misleading and inflated picture of sustainability.
For example:
• A GP surgery in one village is not realistically accessible or used by residents in another
• Bus routes between these locations are unreliable, frequently cancelled, or not suitable for daily commuting
• Residents do not travel between these villages for routine needs such as schooling, healthcare, or shopping
• Road connections between the villages are limited and not designed to support shared infrastructure use
As a result, the ‘cluster’ concept overstates the availability of services and infrastructure, creating the impression that these locations can support significantly more development than they realistically can.
This approach risks justifying higher housing numbers in settlements that, in isolation, are unsustainable and already under strain.
Planning decisions must be based on how communities function in reality — not on theoretical groupings that do not reflect real-life behaviour.
The ‘cluster’ proposal masks existing infrastructure deficiencies and should not be used as a justification for increased housing allocations.
Conclusion
The issues I am currently experiencing demonstrate the very real risks associated with further development in this area.
Approving additional housing without first resolving these problems would be irresponsible and would expose more residents to the same situation.
This is not a theoretical concern — it is already happening.
I strongly urge the Council to reconsider these proposals.
Attachments:
- 19 03 Flood land report COM_SITEC_CO.pdf (1.74 MB)
Object
NEDDC Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation on the Strategic Approach to the Location of Development and Refined Sites (March 2026)
45231 – Land off Pasture Lane Stonebroom
Representation ID: 15076
Received: 01/05/2026
Respondent: Hancock Holdings Ltd
This site already experiences flooding and contains an old well.
There is a real risk that development here would result in the same situation I am currently experiencing — homes flooding and residents left dealing with the consequences.
The respondent suggests Severn Trent should have been consulted prior to the release of the proposed sites and strongly oppose any development upstream to the golf course.
Objections from Hancock Holdings Ltd - Landlord of Shirland Golf and Country Club, Pit Lane, Shirland DE55 6AU
I am writing to reiterate Katie Booth’s detailed objections to the Local Plan sites on behalf of Hancock Holdings Ltd.
In addition, we would like to comment that:-
• Severn Trent should have been consulted prior to the release of the proposed sites because many of them may not be suitable due to the current sewage network in and around Shirland. On many occasions, the golf course and Pit Lane neighbours have been subject to burst sewage pipes and the Hallfieldgate Pumping Station overflowing into our streams. If you look at the GIIST plan, you will note that 3 pipes feed into one single pipe at Cllr Heather Liggett’s field which travels to the pumping station.
Only surface water has been considered, not the sewage system.
• We bought the Golf Club in 2019. I attach the Landmark flood report which states that surface water was ‘moderate’ at the most at that time. Please refer to this link to see that the golf club is now subject to high flood risk and will be worse in a few years to come, even without further development in the local area
https://check-long-term-flood-risk.service.gov.uk/map?easting=439715&northing=357603&map=SurfaceWater
• Site 45841 – Land South of Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland - we have been informed by DCC Floods team that this new development will deliver another 1.71million litres of water per day into our ‘water course', in addition to the 2 million litres of water per day that Katie has been pumping off her property this winter. We are not a water course, we are a golf course that has existed for 50 years next year, for the community to enjoy.
• Site 45904 Land West of Main Road and North of Cross Lane - If this is considered, please also refer to the flood risk link above in that field. I am also concerned that 120 dwellings will require more than one entrance to it currently off Main Road by the allotments. I recommend that Cross Lane and Pit Lane is considered for an upgrade / change of highway category should any development go ahead.
Finally, we would strongly oppose any development upstream to the golf course where we do not receive compensation as the Riparian Landowner in order to cope with extra surface water crossing the Golf Course.
Please do not hesitate to contact the Landlord, *redacted* of Hancock Holdings Ltd on *redacted* for further discussion
Apologies for the slightly late submission of these objections
Re: North East Derbyshire Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation (April 2026)
I am writing as a resident of *redacted* Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland to strongly object to the proposed housing allocations within Shirland and surrounding areas.
My objection is based on direct, ongoing experience of flooding and the clear failure of existing drainage infrastructure following recent development.
________________________________________
Flooding and Drainage Failure
I am currently experiencing severe and ongoing flooding at my property following the Fox Hollies development.
This is not a minor issue — it is having a significant impact on my home and daily life. It is clear that the drainage systems approved as part of that development are not functioning as intended.
Surface water plans referenced watercourses that do not exist in reality. These were not properly checked, and the consequences are now being experienced by residents.
There are also wider issues across the area, including:
• flooding impacting nearby properties such as Gas Cottage
• the local golf course suffering from water issues
• sewage infrastructure already under strain, with sewage currently bursting from pipes along Pit Lane
This demonstrates that the system is already failing.
Given this, I have no confidence that further development will not result in the same issues being repeated.
________________________________________
Site-Specific Objections
Site 45841 – Land South of Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland
This site is of greatest concern given my direct experience and the ongoing issues already affecting my property.
If this development goes ahead, it is clear that millions more litres of water will be displaced downhill, directly impacting existing properties including my own, Gas Cottage, and the golf course. These are not theoretical risks — they are already happening.
The Fox Hollies development has demonstrated that drainage assumptions have been fundamentally flawed, relying on a historic watercourse that has not existed for decades. This highlights a serious lack of verification and oversight within the planning process. It is clear that drainage routes across Hallfieldgate Lane, Pit Lane and the golf course are not fully understood.
How can the risk of a further 90 dwellings be considered acceptable without a full investigation and upgrade of the drainage infrastructure as a minimum?
There are also confirmed sewer capacity failures, with sewage currently bursting from pipes along Pit Lane. This is already unacceptable. The addition of hundreds more residents — including approximately 90 dwellings on this site — would place unsustainable pressure on an already failing system and significantly increase the likelihood of further sewage overflow incidents.
Residents should not be expected to tolerate sewage contamination affecting their homes and surroundings to accommodate further development. Tampons, used toilet roll, actual human excrement have all been found on land, in gardens and on the golf course. Why must existing residents and businesses have actual human faeces in their gardens/land in order for NEDC to meet government housing targets?
This is not just an inconvenience; it presents clear risks to public health, the environment, and quality of life.
In addition:
• Hallfieldgate Lane already suffers from traffic constraints, with sections reduced to single-lane due to parked vehicles
• An additional 90 houses would likely result in 200+ additional vehicle movements, placing significant pressure on a road that is not designed to accommodate this volume
• Local schools are already at capacity and cannot absorb additional demand
• Residents rely on GP services in Alfreton, demonstrating a lack of local provision
• Bus services are unreliable, often cancelled or full, meaning residents cannot depend on public transport
This site represents a clear example of development being proposed in an area where infrastructure has already failed. Allowing further development under these conditions would inevitably lead to more residents experiencing the same issues I am currently facing.
Finally, if Wheeldon Homes are to be the developer, it is deeply concerning that the existing issues arising from Fox Hollies remain unresolved. Until these problems are properly addressed, further development by the same developer should not be permitted. Wheeldon Homes are not part of the Considerate constructors scheme and I think all developments across the district need to have developers who are part of the scheme as a minimum.
________________________________________
Site 45089 – Land at Cross Lane, Shirland (Triangle Field)
This site forms a key and highly visible gateway into the village and is extremely sensitive in terms of landscape and character.
Development here would:
• completely alter the entrance to Shirland
• replace open countryside with a dense and visually intrusive housing estate
• create a development that would appear entirely out of keeping with the existing village
The field itself already floods regularly, and the A61 in this location is well known for surface water issues during periods of rainfall. Development would displace water and increase flood risk both locally and elsewhere.
There are also serious highway safety concerns. The proposed access appears to be onto a 60 mph stretch of the A61, which presents clear risks due to vehicle speeds, limited reaction time, and restricted visibility. Introducing a residential access at this point would be inappropriate and potentially dangerous.
This site also plays an important role in maintaining the separation between Shirland and Alfreton. Development here would significantly reduce that gap and begin to merge the two settlements.
This is particularly concerning given that Alfreton lies within a different district authority, meaning development here would blur both physical and administrative boundaries.
Once this boundary is eroded, it cannot be reinstated.
________________________________________
Site 45207 – Land East of Park Close, Shirland
Residents have already raised concerns that gardens in this area become waterlogged in winter.
Given the failure of drainage systems elsewhere, it is difficult to see how this site could be developed without causing further flooding issues.
There are also existing problems with sewage overflow affecting nearby land and the golf course.
________________________________________
Site 45904 – Land West of Main Road, Shirland
Access to this site would be nothing short of dangerous.
The roads leading to the site are effectively single-track, and any access onto the main road would be unsafe due to limited visibility caused by existing housing.
This site is not suitable for development from a highway safety perspective.
________________________________________
Site 45231 – Land off Pasture Lane, Stonebroom
This site already experiences flooding and contains an old well.
There is a real risk that development here would result in the same situation I am currently experiencing — homes flooding and residents left dealing with the consequences.
________________________________________
Site 45255 – Land to the South of Kingsley Crescent, Stonebroom
This site is an important area of countryside that provides both environmental and social value.
It is home to wildlife and forms part of a natural green space used regularly by local residents, particularly families and children. Many families rely on this space for recreation, exploration, and access to nature.
Development would:
• result in the loss of a valuable wildlife habitat
• remove an important natural drainage area
• eliminate accessible green space for the local community
In addition, this development would extend an existing estate further into the countryside. This area already experiences high levels of deprivation and limited opportunity, and the loss of this open land would remove one of the few accessible and positive environments available to residents.
The impact of losing this space would be significant and long-lasting for the community.
________________________________________
Site 45045 – Land North of Park Lane, Shirland
I am not opposed in principle; however, drainage and sewer infrastructure must be properly assessed and proven before any development takes place.
________________________________________
Objection to the Proposed ‘Shirland Cluster’
I strongly object to the proposal to group Shirland, Stonebroom and Mickley together as a single ‘cluster’.
There is a clear and established divide between these communities, both geographically and in how residents actually live their day-to-day lives:
• Mickley residents predominantly rely on Clay Cross for shops, healthcare and services
• Shirland and Stonebroom residents rely heavily on Alfreton
• There is little to no overlap in how services are accessed between these villages
These are not connected settlements functioning as one community. In reality, they operate as separate villages with different service centres, transport links and infrastructure dependencies.
The proposed clustering approach is therefore fundamentally flawed. It artificially combines facilities across different villages to present a misleading and inflated picture of sustainability.
For example:
• A GP surgery in one village is not realistically accessible or used by residents in another
• Bus routes between these locations are unreliable, frequently cancelled, or not suitable for daily commuting
• Residents do not travel between these villages for routine needs such as schooling, healthcare, or shopping
• Road connections between the villages are limited and not designed to support shared infrastructure use
As a result, the ‘cluster’ concept overstates the availability of services and infrastructure, creating the impression that these locations can support significantly more development than they realistically can.
This approach risks justifying higher housing numbers in settlements that, in isolation, are unsustainable and already under strain.
Planning decisions must be based on how communities function in reality — not on theoretical groupings that do not reflect real-life behaviour.
The ‘cluster’ proposal masks existing infrastructure deficiencies and should not be used as a justification for increased housing allocations.
Conclusion
The issues I am currently experiencing demonstrate the very real risks associated with further development in this area.
Approving additional housing without first resolving these problems would be irresponsible and would expose more residents to the same situation.
This is not a theoretical concern — it is already happening.
I strongly urge the Council to reconsider these proposals.
Attachments:
- 19 03 Flood land report COM_SITEC_CO.pdf (1.74 MB)
Object
NEDDC Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation on the Strategic Approach to the Location of Development and Refined Sites (March 2026)
45255 – Land to the south of Kingsley Cresent, Stonebroom
Representation ID: 15077
Received: 01/05/2026
Respondent: Hancock Holdings Ltd
This site is an important area of countryside that provides both environmental and social value.
It is home to wildlife and forms part of a natural green space used regularly by local residents, particularly families and children. Many families rely on this space for recreation, exploration, and access to nature.
Development would:
• result in the loss of a valuable wildlife habitat
• remove an important natural drainage area
• eliminate accessible green space for the local community
In addition, this development would extend an existing estate further into the countryside. This area already experiences high levels of deprivation and limited opportunity, and the loss of this open land would remove one of the few accessible and positive environments available to residents.
The impact of losing this space would be significant and long-lasting for the community.
The respondent suggests Severn Trent should have been consulted prior to the release of the proposed sites and strongly oppose any development upstream to the golf course.
Objections from Hancock Holdings Ltd - Landlord of Shirland Golf and Country Club, Pit Lane, Shirland DE55 6AU
I am writing to reiterate Katie Booth’s detailed objections to the Local Plan sites on behalf of Hancock Holdings Ltd.
In addition, we would like to comment that:-
• Severn Trent should have been consulted prior to the release of the proposed sites because many of them may not be suitable due to the current sewage network in and around Shirland. On many occasions, the golf course and Pit Lane neighbours have been subject to burst sewage pipes and the Hallfieldgate Pumping Station overflowing into our streams. If you look at the GIIST plan, you will note that 3 pipes feed into one single pipe at Cllr Heather Liggett’s field which travels to the pumping station.
Only surface water has been considered, not the sewage system.
• We bought the Golf Club in 2019. I attach the Landmark flood report which states that surface water was ‘moderate’ at the most at that time. Please refer to this link to see that the golf club is now subject to high flood risk and will be worse in a few years to come, even without further development in the local area
https://check-long-term-flood-risk.service.gov.uk/map?easting=439715&northing=357603&map=SurfaceWater
• Site 45841 – Land South of Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland - we have been informed by DCC Floods team that this new development will deliver another 1.71million litres of water per day into our ‘water course', in addition to the 2 million litres of water per day that Katie has been pumping off her property this winter. We are not a water course, we are a golf course that has existed for 50 years next year, for the community to enjoy.
• Site 45904 Land West of Main Road and North of Cross Lane - If this is considered, please also refer to the flood risk link above in that field. I am also concerned that 120 dwellings will require more than one entrance to it currently off Main Road by the allotments. I recommend that Cross Lane and Pit Lane is considered for an upgrade / change of highway category should any development go ahead.
Finally, we would strongly oppose any development upstream to the golf course where we do not receive compensation as the Riparian Landowner in order to cope with extra surface water crossing the Golf Course.
Please do not hesitate to contact the Landlord, *redacted* of Hancock Holdings Ltd on *redacted* for further discussion
Apologies for the slightly late submission of these objections
Re: North East Derbyshire Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation (April 2026)
I am writing as a resident of *redacted* Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland to strongly object to the proposed housing allocations within Shirland and surrounding areas.
My objection is based on direct, ongoing experience of flooding and the clear failure of existing drainage infrastructure following recent development.
________________________________________
Flooding and Drainage Failure
I am currently experiencing severe and ongoing flooding at my property following the Fox Hollies development.
This is not a minor issue — it is having a significant impact on my home and daily life. It is clear that the drainage systems approved as part of that development are not functioning as intended.
Surface water plans referenced watercourses that do not exist in reality. These were not properly checked, and the consequences are now being experienced by residents.
There are also wider issues across the area, including:
• flooding impacting nearby properties such as Gas Cottage
• the local golf course suffering from water issues
• sewage infrastructure already under strain, with sewage currently bursting from pipes along Pit Lane
This demonstrates that the system is already failing.
Given this, I have no confidence that further development will not result in the same issues being repeated.
________________________________________
Site-Specific Objections
Site 45841 – Land South of Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland
This site is of greatest concern given my direct experience and the ongoing issues already affecting my property.
If this development goes ahead, it is clear that millions more litres of water will be displaced downhill, directly impacting existing properties including my own, Gas Cottage, and the golf course. These are not theoretical risks — they are already happening.
The Fox Hollies development has demonstrated that drainage assumptions have been fundamentally flawed, relying on a historic watercourse that has not existed for decades. This highlights a serious lack of verification and oversight within the planning process. It is clear that drainage routes across Hallfieldgate Lane, Pit Lane and the golf course are not fully understood.
How can the risk of a further 90 dwellings be considered acceptable without a full investigation and upgrade of the drainage infrastructure as a minimum?
There are also confirmed sewer capacity failures, with sewage currently bursting from pipes along Pit Lane. This is already unacceptable. The addition of hundreds more residents — including approximately 90 dwellings on this site — would place unsustainable pressure on an already failing system and significantly increase the likelihood of further sewage overflow incidents.
Residents should not be expected to tolerate sewage contamination affecting their homes and surroundings to accommodate further development. Tampons, used toilet roll, actual human excrement have all been found on land, in gardens and on the golf course. Why must existing residents and businesses have actual human faeces in their gardens/land in order for NEDC to meet government housing targets?
This is not just an inconvenience; it presents clear risks to public health, the environment, and quality of life.
In addition:
• Hallfieldgate Lane already suffers from traffic constraints, with sections reduced to single-lane due to parked vehicles
• An additional 90 houses would likely result in 200+ additional vehicle movements, placing significant pressure on a road that is not designed to accommodate this volume
• Local schools are already at capacity and cannot absorb additional demand
• Residents rely on GP services in Alfreton, demonstrating a lack of local provision
• Bus services are unreliable, often cancelled or full, meaning residents cannot depend on public transport
This site represents a clear example of development being proposed in an area where infrastructure has already failed. Allowing further development under these conditions would inevitably lead to more residents experiencing the same issues I am currently facing.
Finally, if Wheeldon Homes are to be the developer, it is deeply concerning that the existing issues arising from Fox Hollies remain unresolved. Until these problems are properly addressed, further development by the same developer should not be permitted. Wheeldon Homes are not part of the Considerate constructors scheme and I think all developments across the district need to have developers who are part of the scheme as a minimum.
________________________________________
Site 45089 – Land at Cross Lane, Shirland (Triangle Field)
This site forms a key and highly visible gateway into the village and is extremely sensitive in terms of landscape and character.
Development here would:
• completely alter the entrance to Shirland
• replace open countryside with a dense and visually intrusive housing estate
• create a development that would appear entirely out of keeping with the existing village
The field itself already floods regularly, and the A61 in this location is well known for surface water issues during periods of rainfall. Development would displace water and increase flood risk both locally and elsewhere.
There are also serious highway safety concerns. The proposed access appears to be onto a 60 mph stretch of the A61, which presents clear risks due to vehicle speeds, limited reaction time, and restricted visibility. Introducing a residential access at this point would be inappropriate and potentially dangerous.
This site also plays an important role in maintaining the separation between Shirland and Alfreton. Development here would significantly reduce that gap and begin to merge the two settlements.
This is particularly concerning given that Alfreton lies within a different district authority, meaning development here would blur both physical and administrative boundaries.
Once this boundary is eroded, it cannot be reinstated.
________________________________________
Site 45207 – Land East of Park Close, Shirland
Residents have already raised concerns that gardens in this area become waterlogged in winter.
Given the failure of drainage systems elsewhere, it is difficult to see how this site could be developed without causing further flooding issues.
There are also existing problems with sewage overflow affecting nearby land and the golf course.
________________________________________
Site 45904 – Land West of Main Road, Shirland
Access to this site would be nothing short of dangerous.
The roads leading to the site are effectively single-track, and any access onto the main road would be unsafe due to limited visibility caused by existing housing.
This site is not suitable for development from a highway safety perspective.
________________________________________
Site 45231 – Land off Pasture Lane, Stonebroom
This site already experiences flooding and contains an old well.
There is a real risk that development here would result in the same situation I am currently experiencing — homes flooding and residents left dealing with the consequences.
________________________________________
Site 45255 – Land to the South of Kingsley Crescent, Stonebroom
This site is an important area of countryside that provides both environmental and social value.
It is home to wildlife and forms part of a natural green space used regularly by local residents, particularly families and children. Many families rely on this space for recreation, exploration, and access to nature.
Development would:
• result in the loss of a valuable wildlife habitat
• remove an important natural drainage area
• eliminate accessible green space for the local community
In addition, this development would extend an existing estate further into the countryside. This area already experiences high levels of deprivation and limited opportunity, and the loss of this open land would remove one of the few accessible and positive environments available to residents.
The impact of losing this space would be significant and long-lasting for the community.
________________________________________
Site 45045 – Land North of Park Lane, Shirland
I am not opposed in principle; however, drainage and sewer infrastructure must be properly assessed and proven before any development takes place.
________________________________________
Objection to the Proposed ‘Shirland Cluster’
I strongly object to the proposal to group Shirland, Stonebroom and Mickley together as a single ‘cluster’.
There is a clear and established divide between these communities, both geographically and in how residents actually live their day-to-day lives:
• Mickley residents predominantly rely on Clay Cross for shops, healthcare and services
• Shirland and Stonebroom residents rely heavily on Alfreton
• There is little to no overlap in how services are accessed between these villages
These are not connected settlements functioning as one community. In reality, they operate as separate villages with different service centres, transport links and infrastructure dependencies.
The proposed clustering approach is therefore fundamentally flawed. It artificially combines facilities across different villages to present a misleading and inflated picture of sustainability.
For example:
• A GP surgery in one village is not realistically accessible or used by residents in another
• Bus routes between these locations are unreliable, frequently cancelled, or not suitable for daily commuting
• Residents do not travel between these villages for routine needs such as schooling, healthcare, or shopping
• Road connections between the villages are limited and not designed to support shared infrastructure use
As a result, the ‘cluster’ concept overstates the availability of services and infrastructure, creating the impression that these locations can support significantly more development than they realistically can.
This approach risks justifying higher housing numbers in settlements that, in isolation, are unsustainable and already under strain.
Planning decisions must be based on how communities function in reality — not on theoretical groupings that do not reflect real-life behaviour.
The ‘cluster’ proposal masks existing infrastructure deficiencies and should not be used as a justification for increased housing allocations.
Conclusion
The issues I am currently experiencing demonstrate the very real risks associated with further development in this area.
Approving additional housing without first resolving these problems would be irresponsible and would expose more residents to the same situation.
This is not a theoretical concern — it is already happening.
I strongly urge the Council to reconsider these proposals.
Attachments:
- 19 03 Flood land report COM_SITEC_CO.pdf (1.74 MB)
Comment
NEDDC Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation on the Strategic Approach to the Location of Development and Refined Sites (March 2026)
45045 – Land north of Park Lane, Shirland
Representation ID: 15083
Received: 01/05/2026
Respondent: Hancock Holdings Ltd
I am not opposed in principle; however, drainage and sewer infrastructure must be properly assessed and proven before any development takes place.
The respondent suggests Severn Trent should have been consulted prior to the release of the proposed sites and strongly oppose any development upstream to the golf course.
Objections from Hancock Holdings Ltd - Landlord of Shirland Golf and Country Club, Pit Lane, Shirland DE55 6AU
I am writing to reiterate Katie Booth’s detailed objections to the Local Plan sites on behalf of Hancock Holdings Ltd.
In addition, we would like to comment that:-
• Severn Trent should have been consulted prior to the release of the proposed sites because many of them may not be suitable due to the current sewage network in and around Shirland. On many occasions, the golf course and Pit Lane neighbours have been subject to burst sewage pipes and the Hallfieldgate Pumping Station overflowing into our streams. If you look at the GIIST plan, you will note that 3 pipes feed into one single pipe at Cllr Heather Liggett’s field which travels to the pumping station.
Only surface water has been considered, not the sewage system.
• We bought the Golf Club in 2019. I attach the Landmark flood report which states that surface water was ‘moderate’ at the most at that time. Please refer to this link to see that the golf club is now subject to high flood risk and will be worse in a few years to come, even without further development in the local area
https://check-long-term-flood-risk.service.gov.uk/map?easting=439715&northing=357603&map=SurfaceWater
• Site 45841 – Land South of Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland - we have been informed by DCC Floods team that this new development will deliver another 1.71million litres of water per day into our ‘water course', in addition to the 2 million litres of water per day that Katie has been pumping off her property this winter. We are not a water course, we are a golf course that has existed for 50 years next year, for the community to enjoy.
• Site 45904 Land West of Main Road and North of Cross Lane - If this is considered, please also refer to the flood risk link above in that field. I am also concerned that 120 dwellings will require more than one entrance to it currently off Main Road by the allotments. I recommend that Cross Lane and Pit Lane is considered for an upgrade / change of highway category should any development go ahead.
Finally, we would strongly oppose any development upstream to the golf course where we do not receive compensation as the Riparian Landowner in order to cope with extra surface water crossing the Golf Course.
Please do not hesitate to contact the Landlord, *redacted* of Hancock Holdings Ltd on *redacted* for further discussion
Apologies for the slightly late submission of these objections
Re: North East Derbyshire Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation (April 2026)
I am writing as a resident of *redacted* Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland to strongly object to the proposed housing allocations within Shirland and surrounding areas.
My objection is based on direct, ongoing experience of flooding and the clear failure of existing drainage infrastructure following recent development.
________________________________________
Flooding and Drainage Failure
I am currently experiencing severe and ongoing flooding at my property following the Fox Hollies development.
This is not a minor issue — it is having a significant impact on my home and daily life. It is clear that the drainage systems approved as part of that development are not functioning as intended.
Surface water plans referenced watercourses that do not exist in reality. These were not properly checked, and the consequences are now being experienced by residents.
There are also wider issues across the area, including:
• flooding impacting nearby properties such as Gas Cottage
• the local golf course suffering from water issues
• sewage infrastructure already under strain, with sewage currently bursting from pipes along Pit Lane
This demonstrates that the system is already failing.
Given this, I have no confidence that further development will not result in the same issues being repeated.
________________________________________
Site-Specific Objections
Site 45841 – Land South of Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland
This site is of greatest concern given my direct experience and the ongoing issues already affecting my property.
If this development goes ahead, it is clear that millions more litres of water will be displaced downhill, directly impacting existing properties including my own, Gas Cottage, and the golf course. These are not theoretical risks — they are already happening.
The Fox Hollies development has demonstrated that drainage assumptions have been fundamentally flawed, relying on a historic watercourse that has not existed for decades. This highlights a serious lack of verification and oversight within the planning process. It is clear that drainage routes across Hallfieldgate Lane, Pit Lane and the golf course are not fully understood.
How can the risk of a further 90 dwellings be considered acceptable without a full investigation and upgrade of the drainage infrastructure as a minimum?
There are also confirmed sewer capacity failures, with sewage currently bursting from pipes along Pit Lane. This is already unacceptable. The addition of hundreds more residents — including approximately 90 dwellings on this site — would place unsustainable pressure on an already failing system and significantly increase the likelihood of further sewage overflow incidents.
Residents should not be expected to tolerate sewage contamination affecting their homes and surroundings to accommodate further development. Tampons, used toilet roll, actual human excrement have all been found on land, in gardens and on the golf course. Why must existing residents and businesses have actual human faeces in their gardens/land in order for NEDC to meet government housing targets?
This is not just an inconvenience; it presents clear risks to public health, the environment, and quality of life.
In addition:
• Hallfieldgate Lane already suffers from traffic constraints, with sections reduced to single-lane due to parked vehicles
• An additional 90 houses would likely result in 200+ additional vehicle movements, placing significant pressure on a road that is not designed to accommodate this volume
• Local schools are already at capacity and cannot absorb additional demand
• Residents rely on GP services in Alfreton, demonstrating a lack of local provision
• Bus services are unreliable, often cancelled or full, meaning residents cannot depend on public transport
This site represents a clear example of development being proposed in an area where infrastructure has already failed. Allowing further development under these conditions would inevitably lead to more residents experiencing the same issues I am currently facing.
Finally, if Wheeldon Homes are to be the developer, it is deeply concerning that the existing issues arising from Fox Hollies remain unresolved. Until these problems are properly addressed, further development by the same developer should not be permitted. Wheeldon Homes are not part of the Considerate constructors scheme and I think all developments across the district need to have developers who are part of the scheme as a minimum.
________________________________________
Site 45089 – Land at Cross Lane, Shirland (Triangle Field)
This site forms a key and highly visible gateway into the village and is extremely sensitive in terms of landscape and character.
Development here would:
• completely alter the entrance to Shirland
• replace open countryside with a dense and visually intrusive housing estate
• create a development that would appear entirely out of keeping with the existing village
The field itself already floods regularly, and the A61 in this location is well known for surface water issues during periods of rainfall. Development would displace water and increase flood risk both locally and elsewhere.
There are also serious highway safety concerns. The proposed access appears to be onto a 60 mph stretch of the A61, which presents clear risks due to vehicle speeds, limited reaction time, and restricted visibility. Introducing a residential access at this point would be inappropriate and potentially dangerous.
This site also plays an important role in maintaining the separation between Shirland and Alfreton. Development here would significantly reduce that gap and begin to merge the two settlements.
This is particularly concerning given that Alfreton lies within a different district authority, meaning development here would blur both physical and administrative boundaries.
Once this boundary is eroded, it cannot be reinstated.
________________________________________
Site 45207 – Land East of Park Close, Shirland
Residents have already raised concerns that gardens in this area become waterlogged in winter.
Given the failure of drainage systems elsewhere, it is difficult to see how this site could be developed without causing further flooding issues.
There are also existing problems with sewage overflow affecting nearby land and the golf course.
________________________________________
Site 45904 – Land West of Main Road, Shirland
Access to this site would be nothing short of dangerous.
The roads leading to the site are effectively single-track, and any access onto the main road would be unsafe due to limited visibility caused by existing housing.
This site is not suitable for development from a highway safety perspective.
________________________________________
Site 45231 – Land off Pasture Lane, Stonebroom
This site already experiences flooding and contains an old well.
There is a real risk that development here would result in the same situation I am currently experiencing — homes flooding and residents left dealing with the consequences.
________________________________________
Site 45255 – Land to the South of Kingsley Crescent, Stonebroom
This site is an important area of countryside that provides both environmental and social value.
It is home to wildlife and forms part of a natural green space used regularly by local residents, particularly families and children. Many families rely on this space for recreation, exploration, and access to nature.
Development would:
• result in the loss of a valuable wildlife habitat
• remove an important natural drainage area
• eliminate accessible green space for the local community
In addition, this development would extend an existing estate further into the countryside. This area already experiences high levels of deprivation and limited opportunity, and the loss of this open land would remove one of the few accessible and positive environments available to residents.
The impact of losing this space would be significant and long-lasting for the community.
________________________________________
Site 45045 – Land North of Park Lane, Shirland
I am not opposed in principle; however, drainage and sewer infrastructure must be properly assessed and proven before any development takes place.
________________________________________
Objection to the Proposed ‘Shirland Cluster’
I strongly object to the proposal to group Shirland, Stonebroom and Mickley together as a single ‘cluster’.
There is a clear and established divide between these communities, both geographically and in how residents actually live their day-to-day lives:
• Mickley residents predominantly rely on Clay Cross for shops, healthcare and services
• Shirland and Stonebroom residents rely heavily on Alfreton
• There is little to no overlap in how services are accessed between these villages
These are not connected settlements functioning as one community. In reality, they operate as separate villages with different service centres, transport links and infrastructure dependencies.
The proposed clustering approach is therefore fundamentally flawed. It artificially combines facilities across different villages to present a misleading and inflated picture of sustainability.
For example:
• A GP surgery in one village is not realistically accessible or used by residents in another
• Bus routes between these locations are unreliable, frequently cancelled, or not suitable for daily commuting
• Residents do not travel between these villages for routine needs such as schooling, healthcare, or shopping
• Road connections between the villages are limited and not designed to support shared infrastructure use
As a result, the ‘cluster’ concept overstates the availability of services and infrastructure, creating the impression that these locations can support significantly more development than they realistically can.
This approach risks justifying higher housing numbers in settlements that, in isolation, are unsustainable and already under strain.
Planning decisions must be based on how communities function in reality — not on theoretical groupings that do not reflect real-life behaviour.
The ‘cluster’ proposal masks existing infrastructure deficiencies and should not be used as a justification for increased housing allocations.
Conclusion
The issues I am currently experiencing demonstrate the very real risks associated with further development in this area.
Approving additional housing without first resolving these problems would be irresponsible and would expose more residents to the same situation.
This is not a theoretical concern — it is already happening.
I strongly urge the Council to reconsider these proposals.
Attachments:
- 19 03 Flood land report COM_SITEC_CO.pdf (1.74 MB)
Object
NEDDC Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation on the Strategic Approach to the Location of Development and Refined Sites (March 2026)
Settlement Hierarchy
Representation ID: 15084
Received: 01/05/2026
Respondent: Hancock Holdings Ltd
The respondent strongly objects to the proposal to group Shirland, Stonebroom and Mickley into a single ‘cluster’. They state there is a clear divide between the communities in terms of geography and how residents access services. Mickley residents rely on Clay Cross, while Shirland and Stonebroom residents rely on Alfreton, with little overlap in service use.
The settlements are described as separate villages with different service centres, transport links and infrastructure dependencies. The respondent considers the clustering approach fundamentally flawed, as it combines facilities across villages and presents a misleading picture of sustainability.
Examples are given that services are not shared in practice: GP surgeries are not realistically used across villages; bus routes are unreliable or unsuitable; residents do not travel between villages for everyday needs; and road connections are limited. As a result, the cluster concept is said to overstate service availability and suggest that the locations can support more development than they can in reality.
The respondent argues this could justify higher housing numbers in settlements that are unsustainable and under strain. They state planning decisions should reflect how communities function in reality, and that the cluster proposal masks infrastructure deficiencies.
Objections from Hancock Holdings Ltd - Landlord of Shirland Golf and Country Club, Pit Lane, Shirland DE55 6AU
I am writing to reiterate Katie Booth’s detailed objections to the Local Plan sites on behalf of Hancock Holdings Ltd.
In addition, we would like to comment that:-
• Severn Trent should have been consulted prior to the release of the proposed sites because many of them may not be suitable due to the current sewage network in and around Shirland. On many occasions, the golf course and Pit Lane neighbours have been subject to burst sewage pipes and the Hallfieldgate Pumping Station overflowing into our streams. If you look at the GIIST plan, you will note that 3 pipes feed into one single pipe at Cllr Heather Liggett’s field which travels to the pumping station.
Only surface water has been considered, not the sewage system.
• We bought the Golf Club in 2019. I attach the Landmark flood report which states that surface water was ‘moderate’ at the most at that time. Please refer to this link to see that the golf club is now subject to high flood risk and will be worse in a few years to come, even without further development in the local area
https://check-long-term-flood-risk.service.gov.uk/map?easting=439715&northing=357603&map=SurfaceWater
• Site 45841 – Land South of Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland - we have been informed by DCC Floods team that this new development will deliver another 1.71million litres of water per day into our ‘water course', in addition to the 2 million litres of water per day that Katie has been pumping off her property this winter. We are not a water course, we are a golf course that has existed for 50 years next year, for the community to enjoy.
• Site 45904 Land West of Main Road and North of Cross Lane - If this is considered, please also refer to the flood risk link above in that field. I am also concerned that 120 dwellings will require more than one entrance to it currently off Main Road by the allotments. I recommend that Cross Lane and Pit Lane is considered for an upgrade / change of highway category should any development go ahead.
Finally, we would strongly oppose any development upstream to the golf course where we do not receive compensation as the Riparian Landowner in order to cope with extra surface water crossing the Golf Course.
Please do not hesitate to contact the Landlord, *redacted* of Hancock Holdings Ltd on *redacted* for further discussion
Apologies for the slightly late submission of these objections
Re: North East Derbyshire Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation (April 2026)
I am writing as a resident of *redacted* Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland to strongly object to the proposed housing allocations within Shirland and surrounding areas.
My objection is based on direct, ongoing experience of flooding and the clear failure of existing drainage infrastructure following recent development.
________________________________________
Flooding and Drainage Failure
I am currently experiencing severe and ongoing flooding at my property following the Fox Hollies development.
This is not a minor issue — it is having a significant impact on my home and daily life. It is clear that the drainage systems approved as part of that development are not functioning as intended.
Surface water plans referenced watercourses that do not exist in reality. These were not properly checked, and the consequences are now being experienced by residents.
There are also wider issues across the area, including:
• flooding impacting nearby properties such as Gas Cottage
• the local golf course suffering from water issues
• sewage infrastructure already under strain, with sewage currently bursting from pipes along Pit Lane
This demonstrates that the system is already failing.
Given this, I have no confidence that further development will not result in the same issues being repeated.
________________________________________
Site-Specific Objections
Site 45841 – Land South of Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland
This site is of greatest concern given my direct experience and the ongoing issues already affecting my property.
If this development goes ahead, it is clear that millions more litres of water will be displaced downhill, directly impacting existing properties including my own, Gas Cottage, and the golf course. These are not theoretical risks — they are already happening.
The Fox Hollies development has demonstrated that drainage assumptions have been fundamentally flawed, relying on a historic watercourse that has not existed for decades. This highlights a serious lack of verification and oversight within the planning process. It is clear that drainage routes across Hallfieldgate Lane, Pit Lane and the golf course are not fully understood.
How can the risk of a further 90 dwellings be considered acceptable without a full investigation and upgrade of the drainage infrastructure as a minimum?
There are also confirmed sewer capacity failures, with sewage currently bursting from pipes along Pit Lane. This is already unacceptable. The addition of hundreds more residents — including approximately 90 dwellings on this site — would place unsustainable pressure on an already failing system and significantly increase the likelihood of further sewage overflow incidents.
Residents should not be expected to tolerate sewage contamination affecting their homes and surroundings to accommodate further development. Tampons, used toilet roll, actual human excrement have all been found on land, in gardens and on the golf course. Why must existing residents and businesses have actual human faeces in their gardens/land in order for NEDC to meet government housing targets?
This is not just an inconvenience; it presents clear risks to public health, the environment, and quality of life.
In addition:
• Hallfieldgate Lane already suffers from traffic constraints, with sections reduced to single-lane due to parked vehicles
• An additional 90 houses would likely result in 200+ additional vehicle movements, placing significant pressure on a road that is not designed to accommodate this volume
• Local schools are already at capacity and cannot absorb additional demand
• Residents rely on GP services in Alfreton, demonstrating a lack of local provision
• Bus services are unreliable, often cancelled or full, meaning residents cannot depend on public transport
This site represents a clear example of development being proposed in an area where infrastructure has already failed. Allowing further development under these conditions would inevitably lead to more residents experiencing the same issues I am currently facing.
Finally, if Wheeldon Homes are to be the developer, it is deeply concerning that the existing issues arising from Fox Hollies remain unresolved. Until these problems are properly addressed, further development by the same developer should not be permitted. Wheeldon Homes are not part of the Considerate constructors scheme and I think all developments across the district need to have developers who are part of the scheme as a minimum.
________________________________________
Site 45089 – Land at Cross Lane, Shirland (Triangle Field)
This site forms a key and highly visible gateway into the village and is extremely sensitive in terms of landscape and character.
Development here would:
• completely alter the entrance to Shirland
• replace open countryside with a dense and visually intrusive housing estate
• create a development that would appear entirely out of keeping with the existing village
The field itself already floods regularly, and the A61 in this location is well known for surface water issues during periods of rainfall. Development would displace water and increase flood risk both locally and elsewhere.
There are also serious highway safety concerns. The proposed access appears to be onto a 60 mph stretch of the A61, which presents clear risks due to vehicle speeds, limited reaction time, and restricted visibility. Introducing a residential access at this point would be inappropriate and potentially dangerous.
This site also plays an important role in maintaining the separation between Shirland and Alfreton. Development here would significantly reduce that gap and begin to merge the two settlements.
This is particularly concerning given that Alfreton lies within a different district authority, meaning development here would blur both physical and administrative boundaries.
Once this boundary is eroded, it cannot be reinstated.
________________________________________
Site 45207 – Land East of Park Close, Shirland
Residents have already raised concerns that gardens in this area become waterlogged in winter.
Given the failure of drainage systems elsewhere, it is difficult to see how this site could be developed without causing further flooding issues.
There are also existing problems with sewage overflow affecting nearby land and the golf course.
________________________________________
Site 45904 – Land West of Main Road, Shirland
Access to this site would be nothing short of dangerous.
The roads leading to the site are effectively single-track, and any access onto the main road would be unsafe due to limited visibility caused by existing housing.
This site is not suitable for development from a highway safety perspective.
________________________________________
Site 45231 – Land off Pasture Lane, Stonebroom
This site already experiences flooding and contains an old well.
There is a real risk that development here would result in the same situation I am currently experiencing — homes flooding and residents left dealing with the consequences.
________________________________________
Site 45255 – Land to the South of Kingsley Crescent, Stonebroom
This site is an important area of countryside that provides both environmental and social value.
It is home to wildlife and forms part of a natural green space used regularly by local residents, particularly families and children. Many families rely on this space for recreation, exploration, and access to nature.
Development would:
• result in the loss of a valuable wildlife habitat
• remove an important natural drainage area
• eliminate accessible green space for the local community
In addition, this development would extend an existing estate further into the countryside. This area already experiences high levels of deprivation and limited opportunity, and the loss of this open land would remove one of the few accessible and positive environments available to residents.
The impact of losing this space would be significant and long-lasting for the community.
________________________________________
Site 45045 – Land North of Park Lane, Shirland
I am not opposed in principle; however, drainage and sewer infrastructure must be properly assessed and proven before any development takes place.
________________________________________
Objection to the Proposed ‘Shirland Cluster’
I strongly object to the proposal to group Shirland, Stonebroom and Mickley together as a single ‘cluster’.
There is a clear and established divide between these communities, both geographically and in how residents actually live their day-to-day lives:
• Mickley residents predominantly rely on Clay Cross for shops, healthcare and services
• Shirland and Stonebroom residents rely heavily on Alfreton
• There is little to no overlap in how services are accessed between these villages
These are not connected settlements functioning as one community. In reality, they operate as separate villages with different service centres, transport links and infrastructure dependencies.
The proposed clustering approach is therefore fundamentally flawed. It artificially combines facilities across different villages to present a misleading and inflated picture of sustainability.
For example:
• A GP surgery in one village is not realistically accessible or used by residents in another
• Bus routes between these locations are unreliable, frequently cancelled, or not suitable for daily commuting
• Residents do not travel between these villages for routine needs such as schooling, healthcare, or shopping
• Road connections between the villages are limited and not designed to support shared infrastructure use
As a result, the ‘cluster’ concept overstates the availability of services and infrastructure, creating the impression that these locations can support significantly more development than they realistically can.
This approach risks justifying higher housing numbers in settlements that, in isolation, are unsustainable and already under strain.
Planning decisions must be based on how communities function in reality — not on theoretical groupings that do not reflect real-life behaviour.
The ‘cluster’ proposal masks existing infrastructure deficiencies and should not be used as a justification for increased housing allocations.
Conclusion
The issues I am currently experiencing demonstrate the very real risks associated with further development in this area.
Approving additional housing without first resolving these problems would be irresponsible and would expose more residents to the same situation.
This is not a theoretical concern — it is already happening.
I strongly urge the Council to reconsider these proposals.
Attachments:
- 19 03 Flood land report COM_SITEC_CO.pdf (1.74 MB)
