North East Derbyshire District Council planners delay housing scheme decision over traffic and community funding concerns

Worried residents and councillors have persuaded a Derbyshire planning committee to delay a decision for a housing scheme for 59 properties after considering fears that it poses increased traffic problems, a potential strain on services and falls short with community funding contributions.

NE Derbyshire District Council’s planning committee voted on June 23 to defer Homes by Honey Ltd and Together Synergy’s planning application for 59 affordable and social rent homes on land off Central Street, in Holmewood, Chesterfield, to further assess traffic concerns and a reduced amount of community infrastructure funding expected from the developers.

Councillors Suzy Cornwell and Lee Stone, representing Holmewood and Heath, argued the scheme will increase traffic and road safety risks, will place a strain on services and harm the area’s character, and that it also contradicts local planning policies.

And planning committee member, Cllr David Hancock, also questioned why the proposed community infrastructure funding to be paid by the developer to mitigate any issues with the scheme for residents has been reduced from £725,961 to £190,000.

Cllr Cornwell said: “I want to speak plainly about the real world consequences this development will have on our roads and already over-stretched services.

“Access to the site relies on Central Street, Mornington and Springfield Roads that are narrow and congested and not designed for this type of traffic.”

The scheme involves a 1.87hectare site mainly in NE Derbyshire District Council’s area with a small area of a proposed access road off Central Street in Bolsover District Council’s patch and after considering concerns and countryside planning policy Bolsover planners granted planning permission for their area subject to NE Derbyshire’s awaited approval for the wider scheme.

Bolsover District Council also raised no objections to the overall scheme depending upon NE Derbyshire District Council agreeing to grant planning permission.

Cllr Cornwell argued the streets around the site were built when people did not have vehicles and she fears there could be many more extra daily vehicle movements if the scheme goes ahead with increased congestion in a busy neighbourhood as well as at the busy M1 Junction 29 and at the Temple Normanton junction.

She said: “I am telling you of a lived experience. At 7pm when you go for a walk at night it’s absolutely jam-packed with other vehicles and it’s not fit for other traffic.”

Cllr Cornwell also claims public transport is so poor and unreliable that residents will be ‘overwhelmingly car-dependent’ and the roads are unsuitable for construction vehicles.

She also fears the proximity of the development to the Five Pits Trail with concerns about noise, pollution and increased traffic and that  there is insufficient detail in the plans for the proposed treatment of Japanese knotweed.

Both Cllrs Cornwell and Stone argued Holmewood has already absorbed over 1,000 homes and problems are developing with drainage and flooding highlighting incidents at a nearby cricket pitch and on the Five Pits Trail as well as on nearby Tibshelf Road where a resident’s home was swamped with raw sewage.

Cllr Cornwell said: “She had tampons floating around her house among other stuff and because it was at a time when there had been flooding elsewhere it was not considered a priority for Yorkshire Water and it took two weeks for her to get help. So these are the problems you are are going to being dealing with.”

Fellow Cllr Stone also argued that another development in such an unsuitable location will push matters beyond sustainable.

He said: “When you have cars parked on both sides of the road you are not getting anything through there at all.”

Cllr Stone added the proposed development site has always been a well-used recreational area that links to playing fields and the Five Pits Trail.

He said: “When you take that away you are taking away a huge chunk of green space that is used by all the villagers and replace it with Tarmac and brick and once it’s gone, it’s gone.”

Resident Craig Hill also raised concerns for the impact on two nearby care homes where residents – some of whom are dementia and cancer patients – currently benefit from a peaceful environment without noise or distress.

Another resident, Amanda Hill, told how the roads around the scheme’s proposed site are so narrow with parked cars that she clipped a kerb and burst a tyre and she fears the housing scheme will affect people’s health.

The council received 54 submitted representations from residents raising concerns including increased traffic on unsuitable narrow roads, highway safety, the scheme’s potential impact upon the community’s strained infrastructure and services including GPs, schools and dentists, the loss of countryside and open land, the potential harm to wildlife, increased noise and pollution, possible flooding and the impact on drainage.

Heath and Holmewood Parish Council also objected to the scheme on the
basis that it represents a major residential development on a greenfield site in the countryside in what it regards to be an unsuitable and unsustainable location not allocated for development.

And Ault Hucknall Parish Council, which lies near to the site, objected to the plans with concerns about erosion into a greenfield and woodland site and it is also supporting objections and concerns raised by Heath and Holmewood Parish Council and residents.

However, Derbyshire County Council’s highways authority has stated the scheme would not pose an unacceptable impact on highway safety or a severe impact on congestion.

And the county council’s flood authority also raised no objections subject to a number of recommended conditions.

Derbyshire Wildlife Trust stated that improvements should be considered to the overall scheme’s design to better reduce impacts and to mitigate any losses.

NE Derbyshire District Council’s Local Plan allows for affordable housing development in the countryside subject to certain criteria, according to Bolsover District Council, which also highlighted that there is evidence indicating a need for affordable housing within the North East district.

Bolsover District Council acknowledged that there is potential with the scheme for proposed affordable housing provision with both economic and social benefits.

It stated even though the scheme poses a minor conflict with its countryside protection policies if the wider proposal is considered to be sustainable and acceptable, the associated access in its planning area could be justified particularly where affordable housing delivery outweighs any costs.

One resident also made representations in support of the proposed development arguing it is a good site for housing and that it will help with regeneration and enhancing biodiversity.

The council planning officers’ report, which recommended the scheme be conditionally approved subject to the community infrastructure funding agreement, argued any countryside harm with the loss of an undeveloped site and any conflict with planning policies were outweighed by the benefits of the scheme.

It also argued the scheme will provide 100per cent affordable ‘social rent’ housing to help meet an acute local housing need with no statutory objections from consultees concerning highways, flooding and drainage.

Agent Jeremy Williams, of ID Planning, acting on behalf of the applicant, said the application offers 100per cent affordable housing with a sustainable development that has been subject to a rigorous consultation to meet all relevant criteria including the council’s need for affordable housing in an area just a short walk from a bus stop and services.

He added: “We consider the proposal offers significant benefits including 100per cent affordable housing with social rent housing for perpetuity in an area with acute housing need.”

But Cllr David Hancock, who said he does not think there is enough evidence to come to a decision, successfully proposed a motion to defer any decision so there could be a more ‘robust traffic assessment’ and to allow for an assessment of the S106 community infrastructure contributions.

The council had originally proposed for the developer to pay £956,919.63 in Section 106 community infrastructure contributions but later considered accepting £725,961.34 before finally agreeing to accept a significant reduction of £190,000 towards education, countryside services and healthcare after the developer had argued the original amounts were not viable.

Council planning officers stated this proposed figure is acceptable due to what they regarded as the significant planning benefits of the scheme including the provision of 100per cent affordable housing.

However, Cllr Hancock said: “I am less convinced that the policy criteria are being met and I think we are stretching credibility to make them fit and they are not as clear cut. I am not comfortable that the evidence we have is sufficient to support the application.”

And planning committee member, Cllr Neil Baker, also successfully proposed that the council consider using land nearby to help the impact of any parking should the scheme finally be approved.

Planning Committee Chairperson Lee Hartshorne said: “I am all for social housing but I am not convinced this is the right location and I wish there was another place.

“I feel as a committee we are having our hands tied by policy that is not looking after the residents.”

The council’s planning committee voted with ten councillors in favour and one abstention to defer any decision on whether to approve or refuse planning permission to a later date to allow for further assessments.

Following the vote, Cllr Cornwell said: “They are called Honey by Homes but there is nothing sweet about them because they have not engaged with the community.”

Cllr Stone, who is also a Heath and Holmewood Parish Councillor, said he feels like their ‘hands are tied by policy’ and the views and outcomes for residents are not being considered so justice for residents cannot be achieved by the policy.

He added that it is as though ‘the policy criteria has been met and damn all the residents’.