A Derbyshire council’s growth chief has dismissed a campaigner’s claims that the authority has failed in its obligations to support vulnerable children with special educational needs and disabilities with financial contributions from developers during housing developments.
Clowne Garden Village Action Group Chairperson Dom Webb accused Bolsover District Council of failing SEND youngsters over five years after initially raising concerns about the council’s decision to defer a request for a £1.46m SEND contribution from developers as part of the massive Clowne Garden Village housing scheme until a viability review can be completed.
But Cllr Tom Munro told a council meeting there were no SEND contributions requested or sought or collected by the Derbyshire County Council education authority in 2021/22 and 2022/23 from developers through the district council.
He added there was a £119,316.42 contribution requested of developers during 2024/25 and only one other application had to be considered during that year where no contribution was sought.
Cllr Munro, Portfolio Holder for Growth, told the meeting: “Derbyshire County Council will only make requests for education contributions on major planning application categories for residential development where there is an evidential need to do so.
“Similarly, Bolsover District Council will only consider these contributions in the planning balance when a specific request by Derbyshire County Council, as the education authority, is made.”
He added: “The council have not failed in their duty, as the decision to collect any education contributions have formed part of the planning balance for those decisions taken.”
Clowne Garden Village Action Group – which opposes developer Waystone Ltd’s CGV pending development for 1,800 new homes – has called for the Secretary of State to decide under a judicial review whether the scheme goes ahead by examining its viability and its infrastructure financial contributions including the council’s plan to defer requested SEND contributions of over £1.46m from the developer subject to the scheme’s viability.
Cllr Munro revealed that during four financial years including 2021/22, 2022/23, 2023/24 and 2024/25 there were 17 major planning applications for housing determined by Bolsover District Council which could possibly have generated a request from Derbyshire County Council for a SEND contribution.
However, during 2021/22 no SEND contributions were requested, sought or invited from the county council of the district council, and in 2022/23 no SEND contributions were requested, and in 2024/25 there was only one requested and secured SEND contribution of £119,316.42 from the district council, according to Cllr Munro, and there was one other planning application where no contributions were sought.
The Portfolio Holder for Growth pointed out that from all Derbyshire’s borough and district councils the county council only collected one agreed contribution of nearly £77,000 from Amber Valley Borough Council towards SEND in 2021/22.
Cllr Munro added the county council collected £345,556.55 from only two of the county’s eight borough and district councils in 2022/23 and that no SEND contributions were requested or collected from Bolsover District Council during 2021/22 and 2022/23.
But Mr Webb has highlighted that Derbyshire County Council has submitted a request for over £1.46m in 2023 for the pending Clowne Garden Village housing development to be paid by the developer which the district council has deferred subject to establishing the scheme’s sustainability and viability.
Mr Webb has argued that by Bolsover District Council’s decision to defer this contribution it is risking disproportionately disadvantaging children with disabilities who rely on SEND provision.
Clowne Garden Village Action Group claims district council plans to defer the SEND contribution request for over £1.46m from developer Waystone – which will be dependent upon a viability review of the CGV scheme – may disproportionately harm children with disabilities and potentially violate the Equality Act 2010.
Cllr Rob Hiney-Saunders, who oversees the Clowne East ward, has also previously suggested there was a lower priority being given towards SEND Section 106 infrastructure contributions when considering the Clowne Garden Village scheme.
But a council officer has stated that an equality review has been carried out including the impact on SEND and due regard was taken on this issue with an assessment fulfilling the council’s legal duty although Mr Webb has questioned whether there has been such an assessment.
Mr Webb previously said: “We all know someone whether it is a friend or family that has a child that needs SEND provision. Labour rightly campaigned on it in the recent county council elections and the Conservatives rightly put more money into SEND provision this past year.
“To allow the planning system to be used to cut funding to SEND is perverse and this needs to be right at the top of the inbox for Reform leadership at Derbyshire County Council as we fully expect they now join the fight against Bolsover District Councils shameful loss of its moral compass.”
The overall Section 106 contributions requested of the developer to support the area’s infrastructure do include a request from Derbyshire County Council’s education authority of £1,463,597.84 towards helping young people with SEND but the district council has agreed that this will be subject to the outcome of the scheme’s viability.
CGV Action Group has called for the Secretary of State to decide under a judicial review whether the housing scheme goes ahead by examining its current viability and its S106 infrastructure financial contributions including the 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.
Bolsover District Council granted outline planning permission for the scheme near Clowne and Barlborough, in September, last year, and agreed, in May, to approve a draft agreement of the Section 106 financial infrastructure contributions.
It also noted the validity of viability appraisal work and that changes to the National Planning Policy Framework do not materially impact planning permission, and it approved a decision relating to the environmental effects that after an S106 agreement is reached the public would be informed of the granted planning permission.
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.
Developer 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.
