The Grindleford loop would be positioned along the northern side of the existing rail tracks a short distance to the west of Grindleford Station. In that location the northern boundary of the railway is at the bottom of a steep wooded slope, much of the woodland comprising Ancient Woodland202 . OBJ/33 suggested that if gabions were used to support the required embankments, it would be possible to undertake the construction works within a strip of land no wider than 15 metres from the nearest existing rail track [5.8.3, 5.8.7]. The suggested layout provided by OBJ/33 indicates that around 10 metres would be taken up by the new track and retaining wall, without any allowance for drainage infrastructure at the base of the wall, leaving only some 5 metres of the 15 metres for working space and access203 . Even if 15 metres were adequate, it is clear from the layout plan that many more trees than are identified as ‘trees to be removed’ lie within 15 metres of the nearest track. Based on what I have read and seen at the site, not least the challenging steep topography, I share the view of NR that far more than 15 metres would be required to make a reasonable allowance for the new structures as well as working space and access for construction plant, vehicles, materials and personnel [3.2.9-11]. Contrary to the view of OBJ/33, I consider it likely that a significant number of trees would have to be removed from the southern section of the neighbouring Ancient Woodland in order to facilitate the works.
7.3.16 Paragraph 118 of the Framework indicates that local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying a number of principles, which include refusing planning permission for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of ancient woodland, unless the need for and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss.
7.3.17 Whilst Grindleford would provide more operational flexibility, being closer to Dore, the evidence confirms that the Bamford loop would provide a workable alternative from an operational perspective. Furthermore, NR has indicated that in direct comparison with the Bamford proposal, built to accommodate a 640 metre long train, the disadvantages of the Grindleford loop would include, amongst other things, that it would be likely to be: longer, allowing for the transition between the curved alignment of the existing track and the loop; more difficult to access, not least due to the steep topography on the northern side of the tracks; and, as a result of these and other factors, more expensive [3.2.12]. I have not been provided with any compelling evidence to the contrary.
7.3.18 It appears that, in comparison with the Bamford loop, the Grindleford option would be more remote from the nearest residential properties and so the likely impact of noise from the operation of the loop on dwellings would be likely to be less [5.1.12, 5.8.6]. However, the Grindleford alternative would be likely to have a significant impact on the noise environment experienced by users of the local footpath network, which I found to be tranquil in comparison with the Bamford site, where background noise levels are affected by traffic on the nearby A6187.
7.3.19 I consider it can be reasonably concluded on balance, without further investigation, that the identified Grindleford loop location would be unlikely to amount to a preferable alternative to the Order scheme. Any benefits associated with positioning the loop at Grindleford would be clearly outweighed by the likely loss of Ancient Woodland and other disadvantages [5.1.10, 5.4.3-7]. It would conflict with the aims of the Framework.