News

Please find details of the proposed road closure for B5008 Willington Road, Repton, to faciliate carriageway surface dressing and associated works.

You can view the order on this link  https://one.network/?tm=142946574

Please see the linked notice which details time constraints we have applied in terms of the closures involved.

The road will be closed for no more than 10 individual days within the date range specified.

For any queries please email TTM.mailbox@derbyshire.gov.uk

Please find details of the proposed road closure for Springfield Road, Repton.

You can view the order on this link  https://one.network/?tm=143286307

For any queries please email TTM.mailbox@derbyshire.gov.uk

Link to the petition as detailed below

The bustling nature of through-traffic in Repton and Milton, villages in Derbyshire, has become a persistent worry for us residents, particularly due to the disregard for our safety exhibited by speeding vehicles.  This hustle undeniably jeopardizes safety of our residents and the peaceful environment – the very essence of our villages.  Fuelled by concerns arising from Community Speedwatch data, the Repton Parish Council has decided to make a stand.

It is our belief that implementing a 20mph speed limit within the villages, particularly in residential areas, near schools and around village amenities including Repton’s High Street, is an urgent necessity to safeguard our community. 

Reducing the default speed limit on built-up roads in Wales to 20mph has brought multiple benefits – lower speeds have led to 678 (28%) fewer casualties in the twelve months after the national speed limit change compared to the previous year, including 10 fewer deaths.

Why 20mph?

1. Safer: The UK’s Department for Transport estimates that a 1mph speed reduction in built-up areas reduces casualties by 6%.  The new national default 20mph in Wales has led to 28% fewer casualties.  If you hit a pedestrian: at 30 mph there is a 20 percent chance they will be killed whereas at 20 mph there is a 2.5 percent chance they will be killed[1].
2. Cleaner and quieter: 20mph reduces tail-pipe emissions by 25% compared with 30mph and is 50% quieter.
3. Healthier: Slower speeds help to build inclusive communities where people and their activities are prioritised.  People feel safer to walk.
4. Popular: National and local surveys show 70% support for 20mph in residential streets.  Support grows once it is introduced.
5. Accepted: As well as being standard in many places in England, throughout Wales and (by the end of 2025) in Scotland, 20mph is global best practice where people mix with motor traffic.
6. Compliance: 20mph is as enforceable as any speed limit.  Even without extra police enforcement, speeds can drop by up to 6mph on faster roads.
7. Cost effective: 20mph brings economic, social and environmental benefits at a low cost.  Simple signs are enough to remind drivers, without the need for physical changes or extra enforcement.
8. Little impact on journey times: In built-up areas, 20mph limits do not usually affect travel time or bus schedules since congestion and crossings are the main factors.
9. Reduced cost for drivers: as well as lower speeds requiring less fuel, drivers can benefit from reduced insurance premia where 20mph is introduced widely

Speedwatch results indicate that our community’s safety is constantly compromised by vehicles not respecting speed regulations.  This issue extends past single incidents; it is a persistent issue that threatens life and limb and robs us of our villages’ tranquillity.  Many villages in England have already implemented 20mph and this is increasingly normal.  Thus, we will petition Derbyshire County Council, urging them to implement a 20mph limit in Milton and Repton.

We believe that our proposal for a 20mph speed limit across residential roads, school areas and village amenities in Milton and Repton is crucial, not just for our serenity, but ultimately for our safety.  As residents, parents and concerned citizens, we petition the Derbyshire County Council to implement change, prioritise our safety and ensure our cherished villages remains a safe haven for all their residents.  Please sign this petition to support us in discussions with DCC to implement 20mph zones in critical areas of Repton and Milton

---

[1] https://www.roadwise.co.uk/using-the-road/speeding/the-chance-of-a-pedestrian-surviving/#:~:text=at%2030%20mph%20there%20is,chance%20they%20will%20be%20killed.

Please find below the objection that Repton Parish Council has sent to Turley who are working on behalf of Hallam Land also South Derbyshire District Council planning department.

The Repton Parish Council would object to the proposed Development on Land South West of Mount Pleasant Road on the following grounds –

HOUSING

The Repton and Milton Neighbourhood Development Plan Policy (NDP) H1 states –

6.1.2 POLICY H1: THE LIMITS OF DEVELOPMENT: The limits of development, which define the settlement boundary for the villages of Repton and Milton, will be maintained as identified on the proposals maps for each village, as shown below. Housing development outside of the settlement boundary will only be permitted if it is solely or primarily for affordable housing, of a scale and design appropriate to its context and generally in conformity with South Derbyshire Local Plan Policy BNE5.

The proposed development does not meet NDP Policy H1 and forms grounds for objection.

The South Derbyshire District Council Pre Submission Local Plan Part 1 has a revised policy H1. The wording of most relevance in Policy H1 is:

For the above two tiers [includes Repton], development of all sizes within the settlement boundaries will be considered appropriate and sites adjoining settlement boundaries as rural exception sites in accordance with Policy H21 as long as not greater than 25 dwellings.

H21 states:

Rural exception sites, where development is kept in perpetuity as affordable housing, will be permitted adjoining settlements with boundaries defined in the Local Plan, other than Swadlincote, Derby and Burton. The number of dwellings to be provided should be in accordance with Policy H1. Due to the need for affordable housing, all homes delivered within rural exception sites are required to meet the definition of Affordable Housing as set out in the NPPF.

Rural exception sites will only be permitted where:

1. the homes meet a clearly identified local need arising from the adjoining settlement;
2. the need cannot reasonably be met within the settlement boundary;
3. A range of services and facilities are conveniently accessible from the site by means other than private car and
4. The development is proportionate in scale to the existing settlement and is compliant with all other relevant policies in the Local Plan.

The proposed development does not meet the requirements of the SDDC Pre Submission Local Plan Part 1 Policy H21 and forms additional grounds for objection.

AREAS OF CONCERN

The Parish Council would be interested in how the developer intends to address the following concerns –

Flooding and Sewerage –

Flooding is a major concern and, following recent floods, the village has set up a Community Flood Warden Scheme and a installed a stage monitor and alarm in the Repton Brook to handle road closures and parishioners’ safety.  The proposal refers to SuDS (Sustainable urban Drainage Systems) to manage the runoff from the site, including permeable pavements and green spaces to absorb rainfall, and retention/detention basins to hold back runoff from other hard surfaces. Any development that may contribute additional runoff to the Repton Brook during high flows is unacceptable and we require detailed assessment by the Environment Agency.

The village has a continuing problem with the current sewerage arrangement which, given the the age and condition of the sewers and increasing number of users in the village, has been of concern to the parishioners and also the sewerage utility, due to the number of repairs required and their capacity. We would require all the roof drainage from any development should go to soakaways and not into the sewer network, so as to not exacerbate any existing sewer flooding. Severn Trent will have to comment on these concerns based on their understanding of the sewer network.

Traffic –

The Repton Parish Council notes the proposal does not give a figure for the number of parking spaces on the site (though a figure of greater than 150 would be expected) and hence it is difficult to comment on the traffic statements in the proposal other than they surprise us.  Repton does not have any significant employment opportunities planned and hence any residents on the development would be required to travel to their place of work.  Travel by cycle is limited by the lack of cycle routes and the narrow roads and level of traffic on the routes out of the village.  Given the limited bus service available then these journeys would be almost all by car. 

The amount of traffic through Repton (and Willington) currently causes significant hold ups and delays particularly at rush hour, affecting access to the A38 and A50 Trunk Roads  Any problems, roadworks or flooding are exacerbated by the nearest alternative River Trent crossings being in Burton on Trent and Swarkstone Bridge (which is an ancient monument and has only limited capacity).

The Square in Repton is a known problem junction and the egress from Pinfold Lane has limited visibility particularly down Main Street.  Pinfold Lane itself is of limited capacity and the situation is worsened by the terrace houses on the Lane not having off street parking available to them.

The Mount Pleasant Road to Milton is a single track lane with no passing places with potholes and deep gullies each side making passing difficult.  This situation makes it unsuitable for normal levels of vehicular usage and should not be used in assessing traffic flows.

Given the above we would expect the developer’s traffic statement would clearly show the assumptions used and basis of the assessment in order to make any reasonable comments on the assessment.

Green Wedge and Mill Hill –

We would object to the loss of an important open ‘Green Wedge’ in the village providing a major addition to the green spaces defined in the village and provides a nature conservation pathway through the village.

Mill Hill is currently a small hamlet separate from Repton with its own character.  The proposed development would effectively subsume Mill Hill into the village destroying its character.  We would object to this situation arising.

Inaccuracies on the Developers Proposal Statements

We object to the developer making the following misleading or incorrect statements in their proposal –

The proposal incorrectly states that there is a bank in the village.

Medical Centre – Repton does not have a Medical Centre.  It has the Repton Health Centre that serves as an administrative centre for NHS teams and provides little or none of the comprehensive health care the community requires. The local surgery and pharmacy are both in Willington requiring either a bus or more likely a car journey.

The map in the proposal is incorrect in that the only Public Bus Service bus stops are on Burton Road and at the Cross (as they correctly state in their wording).  The service is planned to run every hour in the timetabled period but does not provide a 24 hour service nor gives direct access to the hospitals in Derby or Burton.

It is difficult to understand how two local shops and a small Post Office can qualify as a range of shops.

We also object to the leading question in the ‘Have your say’ section of the proposal that asked if the respondent was in favour of more housing.  The definition of housing requirements is a function for SDDC.  Furthermore, the allocation of sites, across the district to meet this requirement, is also an SDDC function within the Local and any Neighbourhood Plans.  For the developer to use the argument that because people want more housing that this site is required, misrepresents the planning process.

We are surprised at the following statement include in their proposal –

Alongside urban areas like Swadlincote and the peripheries of Derby and Burton-upon-Trent, Repton is a focus area for growth.

                We do not understand the basis for this comment.

Please find below the objection that Repton Parish Council has sent to Savills and also South Derbyshire District Council planning department.

The Repton Parish Council (that covers both the villages of Repton and Milton) would object to the proposed Development East of Repton (Ref DY42664) on the following grounds –

HOUSING

The Repton and Milton Neighbourhood Development Plan Policy (NDP) H1 states –

6.1.2 POLICY H1: THE LIMITS OF DEVELOPMENT: The limits of development, which define the settlement boundary for the villages of Repton and Milton, will be maintained as identified on the proposals maps for each village, as shown below. Housing development outside of the settlement boundary will only be permitted if it is solely or primarily for affordable housing, of a scale and design appropriate to its context and generally in conformity with South Derbyshire Local Plan Policy BNE5.

The proposed development does not meet NDP Policy H1 and forms grounds for objection.

The South Derbyshire District Council Pre Submission Local Plan Part 1 has a revised policy H1. The wording of most relevance in Policy H1 is:

For the above two tiers [includes Repton], development of all sizes within the settlement boundaries will be considered appropriate and sites adjoining settlement boundaries as rural exception sites in accordance with Policy H21 as long as not greater than 25 dwellings.

H21 states:

Rural exception sites, where development is kept in perpetuity as affordable housing, will be permitted adjoining settlements with boundaries defined in the Local Plan, other than Swadlincote, Derby and Burton. The number of dwellings to be provided should be in accordance with Policy H1. Due to the need for affordable housing, all homes delivered within rural exception sites are required to meet the definition of Affordable Housing as set out in the NPPF.

Rural exception sites will only be permitted where:

1. the homes meet a clearly identified local need arising from the adjoining settlement;
2. the need cannot reasonably be met within the settlement boundary;
3. A range of services and facilities are conveniently accessible from the site by means other than private car and
4. the development is proportionate in scale to the existing settlement and is compliant with all other relevant policies in the Local Plan.

The proposed development does not meet the requirements of the SDDC Pre Submission Local Plan Part 1 Policy H21 and forms additional grounds for objection.

SEPARATION OF MILTON AND REPTON

The need to maintain the separation of Milton and Repton villages is a theme that runs throughout the NDP.  In the public consultation it was seen as a fundamental requirement to be included

The NDP has a basic requirement –

5.2.1 Looking at the principles (in the NDP) in more detail:

The preservation of the separate villages of Repton and Milton, so that the individual identity of each community is not lost: The two villages are very different in size, and nature.

The NDP also has Policy OS2

6.2.4 POLICY OS2: THE IMPACT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT ON VIEWS OF AND VIEWS FROM THE COUNTRYSIDE.  This is backed up by a landscape assessment of the parish supporting the separation of the two villages (CEF 6).

CEF 6 – Landscape Character and Visual Aspects Report – contains the following statements

Section on Separation of Repton and Milton –

 2.49 Within the local landscape area there is an overriding need to ensure that potential coalescence of the two villages is avoided. There is a short distance of c.1km between Repton and Milton however the rising land between the two villages, which is reinforced by the settlements (particularly Milton) being nestled along the valley bottom, provides a perception of separation from one another. A sufficiently wide gap should therefore be retained to allow a sense of leaving one place before arriving at the other.

Under section 4.5           

Where possible, future development should also seek to:- Maintain the physical separation between Repton and Milton which reinforces the individual setting and character for each village;

Figure 13 of the document highlights the area and is designated – Settlement Edge of Higher Sensitivity, in Landscape and Visual Terms, to Future Built Development.

The proposed development does not meet NDP policy OS2 and forms another ground for objection.

Major Safety Concern

The Parish Council and parishioners also have a major safety concern for pedestrians and vehicles on Milton Road and exiting and accessing the site given the topography of the area.  These concerns have not reduced since the 2014 application that was withdrawn after objections were received from DCC Highways and the Repton Parish Council.  These concerns have been reinforced by the work of the Community Speed Watch that has been deployed in this area of the village a number of times.  We would be interested to see how these concerns can be met.

Please find the comments on Planning Application DMPA/2023/0700, that were submitted to South Derbyshire District Council Planning Department on 11th March 2025

Description of Planning Application: Repton School, Workshop Latham House ,Tanners Lane, Repton, Derby, DE65 6FP: Change of use of a field from agriculture to education and the creation of two 3G football pitches with the associated floodlighting and fencing, the erection of a changing room pavilion building with tiered spectator seating, the erection of four Padel Tennis courts (two covered), the relocation and extension of an existing groundman’s maintenance shed and the creation of a new car park area with the associated lighting and EV charging points and improved vehicular access road. – The above application has been amended. The amendments are summarised as: Amendments to the proposed scheme have been received, the description of development has been changed and additional information has been received and is available to review on the South Derbyshire District Council Website.

The Repton Parish Council would raise the following comments on the revised Planning Application DMPA/2023/0700 – Repton School 3G Pitches –

It is noted that the original application was withdrawn after its consultation period.  The application has been revived but it is still using the original application form.

Comments –

1. The Repton and Milton Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) has not been addressed at all in the application.  This failure by a local applicant is surprising and needs to be addressed since it has equal weight to the SDDC Local Plan.  This comment was made by the Repton Parish Council against the original application but it continues to be ignored in this revised application.  In particular the following NDP policies need to be clearly referenced and covered in the application –
   1. OS2 – The impact of new development on views and the view from the countryside. (It is noted that SDDC planners requested the applicant to assess the proposal against this NDP policy).
   1. CLE1 – Improvements in sport and play facilities.
   1. CLE3 – Support for Existing and New Businesses. 
2. The Parish Council supports the statement in paragraph 3.7 of the Planning Statement –     When not required by the school, the 3G pitches will be available to Repton Casuals and Willington FC. Pitch hire will also be available to the local community.  The proposal in paragraph 5.26 – Repton School proposes to hire out the pitches to the community at market rates comparable with the 3G pitch at Pingle Academy. The School proposes to subsidise Repton Casuals and Willington FC with a 15% discount from the general community rate. This will be secured via the Community Use Agreement, is also supported by the Parish Council.
3. The Planning Statement states that the facility will help fill a local need for the local community.
   1. The Application quotes SDDC Local Policy S1 (in para 4.9) as being supportive citing section S1 iii) ‘Provide new infrastructure to support the growth across the District. This will include new transport and education provision, and other services and facilities’.  However section iii) of Policy S1 is included in order to support either growth in housing (S1 i) or employment (S1 ii) in South Derbyshire.  The application does not support either of these requirements so Policy S1 is not relevant and cannot be used to support the application.
4. A condition, if the application was granted, would be needed that covers the priority of use by the local community (Repton and Milton, Willington and Newton Solney) to support SDDC Policy INF9.  We would like the following statements to be agreed by the School and binding as part of planning approval:  Repton School commits to making the pitches available to Repton Casuals and Willington FC and the local community (Repton and Milton, Willington and Newton Solney) in line with the timetables included in the application.
5. Paragraph 5.57 states that the access has good visibility both ways.  This is not true for traffic coming up Burton Road from the Cross where visibility is severely hampered by the high bank supporting a large tree.  Nor is there good visibility when turning right out of Tanners Lane because of the same tree and bank.  The Tree and bank should be removed to increase visibility.  There should be a condition of planning approval that the bank be reduced in height and the tree replaced further away from Burton Road.
6. The local Community Speed Watch has shown significant speeding on Burton Road. The Repton Parish Council, with the support of Repton School, currently supports a 20mph speed limit in the Tanners Lane area of Burton Road because of the risk to pedestrians and the observed traffic speed in that area.  Derbyshire County Council Highways Department is aware of our concerns.  The situation would be made significantly worse with the volume of traffic from the facility, particularly in the event of a knock out tournament, with traffic entering and exiting at similar times.  It should be a condition, if the application is granted, that a 20 mph limit should be imposed on the Tanners Lane area of Burton Road. 
7. The use of the facility must not negatively impact the use of the Village by residents.  The application defines 67 parking spaces with seating for 168 spectators provided in the stand.  With the number of players, officials and organisers involved, if more than four teams are involved in an event (e.g. a knockout competition) then parking at the facility must be restricted to participants only and spectators would be required to park elsewhere on the applicant’s estate and suitably marshalled. This would need to be a condition of use if the application was approved.  Double yellow lines at the Tanners Lane area of Burton Road to stop any inconsiderate and dangerous parking should also be installed.  (It is noted that the application states that coaches would be required to use the Repton Sports Centre parking or other parts of the school estate and needs to be included as a condition if approved.)  The assumptions in the Applicants Traffic Statement are plainly wrong and grossly underestimates potential users and their transport needs.  The use of an overflow car park on an adjacent green field for these situations will mean there will be considerably more cars than parking places using Tanners Lane.
8. The access assessment in the application states the access to the facility will be limited to Minibuses of up to 17 seats and would need to be a condition of use. 
9. The increase in traffic modelled by Integrated Transport Planning Ltd. and documented in section 5 of their May 2023 report “Transport Statement” which might naively assume that drivers know when the car park is full and not proceed down Tanners Lane.  This statement shows 66 cars leaving the new facility at roughly the same time that day pupils are leaving their houses – some on foot and some being collected in cars.  The Transport Statement is also naive in assuming that the car park, Padel Courts and pitches will generate no more traffic at any other time.  Match days and other busy days will see large volumes of traffic movements which may be marshalled to prevent parking overflow but will not stop the movements themselves.  There could also the use of an overflow car park on an adjacent green field to the facility that will mean there will be considerably more cars than parking places using Tanners Lane.   This will cause Tanners Lane to be very busy at times and, for the protection of all pedestrians, we require that a new footway (Public Right of Way) is built along Tanners Lane from Burton Road to Jeremiah’s Walk with a high kerb (or equivalent) that cannot be overrun by Range Rovers and the like.
10. The design and supporting documentation of the Floodlights (planning statement para 5.70) must be clarified and consistent (eg height) to allow the planned design, to minimise light pollution and glare external to the site, to be agreed with SDDC before construction is started as a condition if the application was approved.  The installed lights would also need to be reviewed by SDDC after installation, to assess their effect on the surrounding environment following the installation of the recent floodlights at the Repton Sports Centre and the problems faced by drivers using the Willington to Repton road that were found.
11. Repton has a wealth of historic links going back to before the time of Vikings.  The application planning statement, in paragraph 5.84 to 5.90, covering other material considerations makes no reference to any heritage requirements. The application does however include a desk top assessment in the supporting documentation.  We do not consider the use of a desk top Archaeological assessment to be adequate at this site.  This supported by Appendix 1 (attached) to this document and would require the involvement of competent archaeologists in the work as a condition if the application was approved.
12. The hours of floodlight use need to be restricted to from 9am to 9pm throughout the year to minimise disturbance to the local community (paras 5.12 and 5.29).
13. The Padel courts cause considerable noise, and in some instances have been refused an application, because of the gun shot sound that happens with every shot.  For any housing near the courts, this would be unnerving and socially disruptive.  We therefore respectively suggest that the courts should be moved as far from housing as possible, both school houses of Latham, Garden and Field as well as Serendipity at the end of Tanners lane and houses on Burton Road.  There should be an assessment of noise nuisance and the provision of sound deadening features to produce adequate noise reduction in the design for SDDC approval as a condition.  We would require the use of the Pitches, court lighting and back ground music to be ceased at 9 pm sharp throughout the year.

Until the points raised above have been satisfactorily answered The Repton Parish Council is bound to object to the application as it stands.

Appendix 1.

Comments provided by a knowledgeable parishioner.

There are concerns about the plans to develop this land as, in addition to the building work, it will almost certainly involve elements of levelling and terracing which would destroy any archaeological evidence – which may span a thousand years.

It is generally accepted that by 550CE there was a recognisable Anglo-Saxon settlement in Repton preceded by the Romano British – evidence of which was found during the construction of the Science Priory. All the land around that site has been either terraced or not archaeologically explored and it is unknown how far west, this or later settlement may have extended. From this and the earlier Roman period, there may be evidence of settlement and field boundaries in the area in question.

The Viking winter camp in 873/4 used Repton as a base for its attack on Burghred in Tamworth, but given the improved understanding of the size of the Great Heathen Army, it could not have been camped only in the D-Shaped enclosure embracing the church. Foremark is a Norse name and a good clue that parts of the army (and there were 5 separate groups) were camped there – supported by archaeological evidence. However it is likely that the army – likely to be around 5000 strong ¹ – was camped all along the high ground over the Trent from the Viking Cremation Cemetery in the east at Heath wood towards Newton Solney in the west with Repton as a central point.

In later times, antiquarians (Hipkins and Bigsby² ) note stone work being found along the high ground west of the core village in the area of the proposed work.

A desk-based study is considered inadequate as no archaeological work has been done there and so there will be nothing for a desk-based study to find. Ideally a geophysical survey would be carried out and, at the very least, a competent archaeological watch be kept and techniques for levelling and terracing used which will enable this watch to be effective. It is likely that metal detecting has already taken place over the years and the finds dispersed, but it might still be worth offering an opportunity to a responsible detecting club.

1. In the 1960’s the army was thought to be in the hundreds. Archaeological work at Torksey (the winter camp in 872/3 – before Repton) changed that – a much bigger site. Coupled with the A-S Chronicle’s evidence of a 300 ship Viking Fleet in the Thames Estuary in 851CE and similar large numbers at other times, carrying maybe 10,000 people  the army could be bigger than 5000 and occupy considerable space.
2. Bigsby: PP114, 115

Did you know that civil enforcement officers have replaced traditional traffic wardens and are responsible for enforcing: 

• Limited Waiting Bays
• Double and Single Yellow Lines
• On Street Pay and Display Bays
• Residents’ Parking Zones
• Blue Badge Bays
• Loading Bays
• Bus Stops
• Taxi Bays
• School Keep Clears
• Clearways
• Dropped Kerb Access (also Police)
• Double Parking (also Police)
• Pedestrian Crossings (also Police)
• Car Parks (with orders)

To report issues that the civil enforcement officers enforce such as double yellows or school zig zags please report direct via email: contact.centre@derbyshire.gov.uk or by Calling: 01629 533190

The police are responsible for enforcing:

• Double White Lines
• Obstruction – For example, pavements with No Parking Restrictions
• Dangerous Parking where there are no restrictions in place, for example, On Bends, Brows Of Hills and Junctions
• Dropped Kerb Access (Also Civil Enforcement Officers)
• Double Parking (Also Civil Enforcement Officers)
• One-Way Traffic
• Box Junctions
• Access Only
• White-Hatched Areas
• Pedestrian Crossings (Also Civil Enforcement Officers)

For Police related offences, please call 101

The B5008, Willington Road, Repton will have a temporary speed limit restriction to facilitate patching prior to surface dressing with the traffic order being in effect from 3rd to 7th March 2025. Please contact Call Derbyshire for further information on 01629 533190

THIS HAS NOW BEEN UPDATED BY DCC TO EXTEND UNTIL 14TH MARCH 2025