Council planners have once again rejected a scheme for a children’s home in Chesterfield to the relief of many nearby residents despite the developer’s introduction of a number of amendments.
Chesterfield Borough Council’s planning committee voted by a majority at a meeting on February 24 to refuse Dr Catherine Kemp’s amended planning application for a two-storey assessment centre and children’s home to be built on the site of a former health centre on St Philip’s Drive, in Hasland, Chesterfield.
The application was previously refused after the committee agreed it would not fit with the character of the neighbourhood which includes many bungalows and despite the submission of amended plans the committee once again refused the application on the grounds it poses over-development with concerns about parking and the loss of light.
Cllr Stuart Brittain said: “I do appreciate the developers have gone to great lengths to feed in as much as possible with the concerns raised and I applaud that but the effect is it is putting in an overbearing facility among a group of bungalows. If this goes through it’s going to be a major blow to them.”
He added that he was also concerned about the car parking arrangements and the possible effect of overshadowing from the building creating a loss of light.
Cllr Amanda Serjeant, who represents Hasland, together with residents previously raised objections that the site was close to boundaries, would dominate the street-scene, posed an increase in traffic safety problems and that a two-storey extension would overlook bungalow homes.
Director David Peck, of planning company P&DG, previously argued the plans would not result in an impact on highway safety and that separation distances and the height of the development accords with boundaries and the surrounding area is not just characterised by bungalows.
Derbyshire County Council’s Highways Authority raised no objections to the planning application and environmental health officers made no adverse comments.
However, 84 objections were originally received from 62 individuals as well as from Chesterfield Borough ward member for Hasland, Cllr Amanda Serjeant, and after the submission of an amended application the council also confirmed that it had received further additional public representations.
But following the committee’s original refusal of the application, the developers presented a number of amendments to allow the committee to reconsider the application and council officers subsequently recommended the amended application should be approved.
The application includes plans for alterations to the roof, installation of dormer windows, a single-storey rear extension and other alterations.
Amendments included: Moving the main entrance; A rearranged parking layout so the sixth parking space would be to the right of the entrance in front of the building allowing for a fence separating the parking area from the garden area to be relocated; Increasing the size of an amenity area with a larger patio and lawn; And an updated daylight assessment was also submitted.
But campaigners who submitted further objections argued that the newly amended plans still posed similar problems.
Cllr Serjeant urged the committee to reject the application over ‘significant material planning concerns’ including ‘over-development’ in a residential area, the ‘street-scene’, noise, the loss of light and that the facility and its location does not offer youngsters coming into care enough community space.
Former chartered surveyor Paul Hills, of St Philip’s Drive, argued the amended development still posed an ‘over-development’ and that the facility was in the wrong place with too small an amenity space and with a car park that was too narrow.
But Mr Peck argued the facility’s design is compatible with the street-scene and that there will be sufficient parking and that living conditions would be acceptable.
And Peter Kemp, who also represented the applicant, told how some parents are struggling to look after their children so they need residential care and there are a number of people whose lives would be better off if the application was approved and everything possible has been done to make sure the development does not have a negative impact.
But Cllr Maureen Davenport said: “There does appear to be more negatives than positives. The parking is obviously a problem. The site does seem to be over-developed.
“There is going to be noise and disruption particularly for the neighbours by this site.”
Cllr Davenport also pointed out that she understood the facility is to be occupied 24 hours a day and seven days a week unlike when it was surgery and she was concerned about the lack of amenity for youngsters.
Some councillors supported the application including Cllr Kate Caulfield who expressed sympathy for the residents’ concerns but argued there is a need for such facilities and Cllr Martin Stone argued these facilities should be located in communities.
However, the committee voted by a majority to refuse Dr Kemp’s application after Cllr Brittain proposed it should be refused on the grounds of overshadowing, over-development, a lack of amenity space and with concerns about parking.