Report by Local Democracy Reporter – Jon Cooper
Bolsover District Council planners have agreed to defer a decision on a controversial village housing scheme after the developer’s attempt to be spared from meeting all of its community funding and affordable housing contributions has been met with objections.
Forge New Homes applied to vary an agreement with its approved scheme for 49 homes on land off Park Avenue and Blacksmiths Close, near Mansfield Road, in Glapwell, on the grounds a full community funding agreement was no longer viable just seven days after it had been formally granted conditional planning permission on reserved matters relating to landscaping.
The council’s planning committee reconsidered the application on October 28 based on the applicant’s viability concerns but after receiving objections from Derbyshire County Council and the public to the developer’s attempt to avoid paying full contributions towards education and the community, the committee agreed to defer the matter to a later date so it can be reviewed.
Cllr Phil Smith said: “I welcome this, particularly based on the financial viability. I personally think we consider the planning terms and we consider whether we agree or disagree on planning grounds. And now we have another dimension – we have its viability.
“So I really welcome this challenge and I hope this will set a precedent going forward… If they cannot uphold the conditions, the whole planning should be withdrawn.”
The council issued a decision on July 29 formally granting conditional planning permission for the scheme’s reserved matters but the council received an application from Forge on August 5 to modify its S106 community funding and affordable housing contributions with a viability report claiming its plans had become unviable.
Forge’s original obligations under a legal agreement included providing affordable housing amounting to ten per cent of the scheme’s properties.
It had also agreed to pay £227,996 to Derbyshire County Council for The Bolsover School, £40,964 towards children’s play equipment, £48,755 towards outdoor sports facilities, one per cent of the development cost towards the provision of public art, and £3,750 Travel Plan monitoring.
But following an independent review, the council indicated it would consider accepting a reduced S106 payment from the applicant of £168,000.
And after negotiations the council also confirmed that just two affordable units for social rent and an additional £85,000 towards other affordable housing in the district would be agreeable.
However, Derbyshire County Council stated that a reduced contribution of £177,330.23 would at least still be required towards education in line with the original scheme’s reduced number of homes from 62 to 49.
A county council spokesperson said: “Where development generates additional demand for school places and existing capacity is insufficient, such contributions are necessary to mitigate the impact of development and ensure that it remains acceptable in planning terms.
“Derbyshire County Council therefore considers that the secondary education contribution, albeit at the revised figure of £177,330.23, continues to be necessary to mitigate the impact of the development, having regard to the capacity constraints at The Bolsover School.”
Glapwell Parish Council, Bolsover District Cllr Tom Kirkham, the district council’s leisure services and its arts officer have also objected to Forge’s application to alter its S106 agreement along with nine objections from the community.
Representations from the community argued that funding obligations formed part of the planning permission and should therefore be honoured and they questioned whether the applicant is attempting to increase profitability rather than address genuine viability concerns.
They also raised concerns that removing financial contributions would deprive local facilities of funding intended to mitigate the impacts of the development while there is already existing pressure on local services, including GP surgeries, schools and community infrastructure.
Cllr Kirkham said: “As a councillor for this ward when the original planning was passed it was stated in arguments to approve the plans that the S106 money is a significant reason to approve them. If this money was not part of the argument the outcome could have been different.”
Campaigners opposed the original scheme under a different developer in 2020 for up to 62 homes on the grounds that amenities would be stretched to breaking point, that increased traffic would ruin residents lives, and that the scheme would involve a loss of trees and wildlife habitats.
Glapwell Town Council also objected to the scheme on the grounds that it would be on a greenfield site, involve increased traffic and access issues, pose sewerage concerns, a strain on education and healthcare infrastructure, and would alter the nature of the village whilst arguing it would deliver no economic benefits for the community.
Sarah Bister, of Glapwell, who campaigned against the scheme and criticised the developer’s viability claims, stated if the applicant will not commit to what was promised, the council should ask whether this scheme should proceed.
Council officers had recommended Forge’s requested S106 changes be approved subject to providing two Affordable Housing homes and an affordable Housing Contribution of £85,000 to be used by the council towards Affordable Housing elsewhere in the district.
However, following Derbyshire County Council’s latest objection and a public representation raising questions over the council officer’s report and the independent viability review, the planning committee agreed to defer the matter for consideration at a later date.
