Derbyshire campaigners have vow to continue to push for a judicial review into the controversial Clowne Garden Village housing development for 1,800 homes – even though councillors have granted conditional outline planning permission for the scheme.
Bolsover District Council previously approved Waystone Ltd’s outline planning permission for the scheme, near Clowne and Barlborough, subject to agreed financial infrastructure contributions from the developer worth millions of pounds which were finally completed and agreed by the council on August 20.
But while the developers will still need to submit follow-up planning applications for each phase of the scheme and meet various conditions and legal obligations, the Clowne Garden Village Action Group is still calling for the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to decide under a judicial review whether the scheme should go ahead.
Council Leader, Councillor Jane Yates, said: “This development will be a huge change for Clowne and the surrounding areas and we appreciate a lot of people have concerns.
“We have done everything we can to ensure that concerns raised have been addressed through the planning process. We will continue to communicate and consult with the public throughout the development to ensure local people are kept informed.
“The impact this development will have on the district will be a hugely positive one with more resources and better choice of housing for residents.”
However, campaigners have opposed the plans for 1,800 homes with 24 hectares of greenfield land for employment, community and commercial development, green infrastructure, educational and recreational uses, a retirement village, a neighbourhood centre, hotel, restaurant, and health care and leisure uses at a site near Clowne and Barlborough including part of Clowne village centre off Hickinwood Lane.
Many hundreds of residents and campaigners have raised objections to the housing scheme amid fears it will lead to overcrowding, place a strain on highways, health services and education, create drainage and flooding problems and affect the countryside and wildlife with the loss of some Green Belt land.
During the planning process, a consultation attracted at least 1,400 comments and the Clowne Garden Village Action Group’s membership grew to over 2,000 people sharing opposition to the scheme and its online and paper petitions attracted over 6,000 signatures from residents in Clowne and Barlborough opposed to the plans.
Clowne Garden Village Action Group Chairperson Dom Webb and fellow campaigners have urged the district council to further review and update draft agreements for the development for 1,800 homes after raising concerns including claims of outdated highways information, more flooding fears and the scheme’s current viability.
The group also called in June for the Secretary of State to decide under a judicial review whether the scheme goes ahead by examining its current viability and its S106 infrastructure financial contributions including a plan to defer SEND funding, as well as complaints that there is a need for sequential flood risk testing, and that its highways data is outdated, and it offers weak affordable housing provision.
Clowne Garden Village Action Group has argued the council’s August 2024 Viability Report became invalid from May 31 and that it fails to account for three to five per cent rises in construction costs, stagnant housing sales, and declining commercial land values and that a £302,986 residual land value shortfall endangers £25.4m in S106 infrastructure obligations including affordable housing.
It also claims plans to defer £1.46m of funding – which will be dependent upon a viability review – for youngsters with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities may disproportionately harm children with disabilities and potentially violate the Equality Act 2010.
Mr Webb said: “The council’s view that the scheme is financially viable is questionable and comes at the expense of vulnerable children being deferred with SEND contributions not considered to be the same priority as primary and secondary education.”
He also claims that despite a high surface water flood risk with 3.3per cent annual probability, according to the Lead Local Flood Authority after Storm Babet, no sequential flood test has been conducted which he claims breaches the 2024 National Planning Policy Framework.
Mr Webb says that by relying on 2017 traffic surveys, the scheme’s highways data is outdated and threatens safety because he believes the transport assessment underestimates traffic by up to 10.83per cent by 2032 or 30.20per cent by 2049 and that concerns from Active Travel England and Derbyshire County Council’s highways authority have been inadequately addressed.
Finally, the action group has argued the scheme involves weak affordable housing provisions because the S106 infrastructure agreement’s 10per cent affordable housing commitment includes a three-month marketing period, risking reliance on commuted sums that may not deliver equivalent housing which he claims also contradicts NPPF standards.
However, the council has stated that it has addressed changes to the NPPF and its planning committee was updated on the validity of the viability in May and that it has met its duties under the environmental impact assessment regulations.
The Secretary of State originally decided in February not to call in the planning application for further consideration and to leave its determination with the district council, and that officers recommended draft details concerning the developer’s financial contributions towards the infrastructure be approved allowing for any minor amendments to finally confirm the overall planning permission.
The council has also stressed that changes in a revised NPPF in December, 2024, concerning decision-making and development management are not considered to materially impact on the decision of the planning committee.
And the council’s viability expert advised that findings from the August 2, 2024, viability assessment for the scheme can still be relied upon if an agreement was reached on the S106 obligations by May, 2025, or soon afterwards which has been achieved.
In addition, Derbyshire County Council’s highways authority and Highways England raised no objections to the scheme, and the county council’s flood team, the Environment Agency, the Coal Authority, Derbyshire Wildlife Trust and Yorkshire Water also raised no objections.
Waystone has claimed there is support for the scheme in terms of the potential for economic growth, facilities and jobs and that it will also support the need for housing and bring highway improvements.
The council granted conditional outline planning permission for the scheme on August 20 following completion of the S106 legal agreement but work will not start until detailed planning permission has been granted for each development phase and until further information relating to planning conditions has been considered and approved.
The S106 contributions include: The delivery of a new primary school by the applicant or a full contribution of £9,500,000 to Derbyshire Council’s education authority for the delivery of a new primary school, and also a Secondary School Contribution of £8,258,879; A new Treble Bob roundabout scheme; An M1 Junction 30 scheme and a travel plan; And that ten per cent of the new properties will be affordable housing,
Other contributions include a £1,800,000 contribution towards the NHS Integrated Care Board to improve health care facilities, a deferred £1,463,597 towards helping young people with SEND depending on the scheme’s viability, and a deferred payment of £126,840 towards local library stocks and capacity also depending on viability.
Mr Webb, who says court papers are due to be filed soon, wrote to the Secretary of State, Angela Rayner, in the summer with the action group’s concerns.
He urged Bolsover District Council be directed not to issue a decision of notice on the Clowne Garden Village planning application and that the matter should be called-in for the Secretary of State to determine and to ensure that lawful process has been followed.
Mr Webb said: “It is right that the council now defend their handling of this application and their actions in the High Court.
“It is not without note that multiple members of the council’s own planning committee have come forward to support the court action, raising valid concerns over the process the council has forced on residents over eight years, the majority of whom have repeatedly said they do not want the development.”
Bolsover District Council granted outline planning permission for the scheme in September, last year, subject to agreed S106 financial infrastructure contributions from the developer which were approved under a draft agreement in May and have now been completed on August 20 under a legal agreement.
