Homes set to be approved at Derbyshire burial site

Modern Edge Development Group Limited wants to build 31 houses on land to the rear of Peasehill in Ripley, close to Ripley Academy and the Pit Top public park. It had originally applied for 40 homes on the vacant plot, scattered with trees, bushes and other foliage, but this has now been scaled back.

Amber Valley Borough Council planners have recommended that the project is approved at a meeting on Monday, September 11.

Locals say the former landowner, Eric Fotherby, who died in 2006, is buried on the site – as per his will – and that it was his dying wish for the plot to remain protected for wildlife.

Council papers on this issue say they and the developers are aware of the belief that a body is buried on the site, along with a modern stone circle around the specific plot.

Officers write: “Local residents have highlighted that the former landowner is buried within the north east corner of the site where there is a modern stone circle.

“The applicant has been unable to clarify whether or not there is a burial in the northeastern corner of the site. However, there is no development within this part of the site proposed and the stone circle is to be retained.”

They write that it is an offence for a body or human remains to be removed unless permitted by the courts or the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England, or via an exhumation licence from the Government, with guidance from public health officers.

A total of 27 objection letters have been submitted by residents surrounding the site, with a further objection from Ripley Town Council.

Concerns focus on the presence of the former owner’s grave on-site, the loss of wildlife, the impact on roads and other infrastructure, such as GPs and schools, and development in and around Pit Top.

Cllr David Williams said last year that there were numerous valid reasons to reject the plans, primarily damage to trees and wildlife, along with poor access onto a busy road.

He also said: “Whilst the burial of the former landowner’s body under the site is not a material reason to reject the application it is certainly a moral reason not to grant the application.”

Council officers, recommending approval, wrote: “The original scheme provided a layout for 40 dwellings which was considered to be an over-development of the site comprising poor design, with rows of dwellings, car parking at the front of each dwelling resulting in a car centric dominant frontage, individual houses had short gardens with tree canopies hanging close to dwellings which would likely to lead to their removal upon occupation of the dwellings.

“The revised layout proposes a reduction in numbers to that of the originally proposed scheme with a mix of both tenure and size of dwelling and removes the built development from the existing woodland area to the very north of the site. It also retains the area of stones to the north-east. Dwellings have larger gardens and parking is not the dominant feature when entering into the development from the access road.”