Plans for 50 more homes near Chesterfield approved despite locals fearing 'long term issues'
NE Derbyshire District Council’s planning committee granted conditional permission on July 28 for Northwood’s re-plan of the site on land near the Poplars, at Ankerbold Road, Old Tupton
Derbyshire planners have given the go-ahead for an additional 49 new homes expanding an overall housing scheme to 242 properties despite concerns about the continued impact of the development, a potential increase in traffic and a reduced financial contribution towards the community’s infrastructure.
NE Derbyshire District Council’s planning committee granted conditional permission on July 28 for Northwood’s re-plan of the site on land near the Poplars, at Ankerbold Road, Old Tupton, near Chesterfield, with an additional 49 plots bringing the total for Phase 2 of the overall scheme to 196 homes to be combined with 46 properties completed or under construction at Phase 1.
Dean Jones, representing residents of nearby Ash Grove, told the committee meeting: “Forty nine additional houses is a significant increase which will surely prolong the completion of the development further and cause long-term issues for local residents.
“For six years residents have put up with what is a clear detrimental impact on the quality of their daily lives caused by this development including; Constant noise pollution; Dust deposits; Impact vibration; Shaking houses; Locations of skips and fires; Work being undertaken outside the agreed timeframes; And the outlook we now have from our residential properties overlooking large overgrown earth mounds and dumping grounds for site material.”
Cllr David Hancock had called in the application for the committee to determine due to the significant increase in the number of proposed homes and the impact this might have on the area’s local amenity and highway capacity.
And Cllr Pam Windley objected to the proposals with concerns for the area’s infrastructure and that Ankerbold Road is already saturated with new homes, was never intended for such a high volume of buildings and that the three junctions leading off this road are small and busy with parked vehicles nearby.
The council received seven formal objections including a group representation with concerns about over-development, overshadowing, a loss of daylight, an overbearing scheme resulting in the loss of outlook and privacy with particular impacts also anticipated for Wingfield Road and Pond Lane residents.
They also raised concerns about boundary rights, the loss of hedgerows, trees and wildlife habitat, flooding incidents during construction, and an increase in vehicles and traffic safety issues with claims that local services including GPs, schools, the power supply and drainage systems are already overstretched.
But Derbyshire County Council’s highways authority confirmed it has no objections to the proposals subject to conditions although it suggested a contribution towards improvements along the A61 corridor, given the capacity issues at the Nethermoor Road and Queen Victoria Road junction.
Its flood team also raised no objections subject to conditions relating to a management and maintenance plan of the surface water drainage for the site and Yorkshire Water also raised no objections.
The Environment Agency stated that it has no fluvial flood risk concerns associated with the site and the district council’s Environmental Health Officer confirmed he has no objection in principle but has recommended that an air quality screening assessment should be submitted.
The Coal Authority also stated it does not object to the scheme and is satisfied that coal mining legacy issues are not significant and do not pose a risk to development at the site.
NE Derbyshire District Council conceded the development is surrounded on three sides by residential development and will result in a change in the outlook from a number of properties which previously had views over open fields.
However, council officers reported that the proposed development would adequately respect the privacy and amenity of neighbouring dwellings.
The district council also accepted just 20 affordable homes for the overall scheme and reduced Section 106 financial contributions from the developer to support community infrastructure totalling £784,000 instead of a requested £1,756,820 after considering a viability assessment.
A district council spokesperson said: “The scheme would secure 20 affordable rented dwellings through Rykneld Homes together with £784,000 of Section 106 contributions directed towards identified education, healthcare and highway infrastructure priorities.
“The inclusion of a viability review mechanism within the Section 106 Agreement will also allow the council to capture any future uplift in viability and direct this towards additional planning obligations, including affordable housing.”
The district council also conceded that it is currently unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites so an additional 49 dwellings on an allocated housing site, including affordable housing provision and infrastructure contributions, attracted significant weight in favour of the proposal.
A district council spokesperson stated: “Significant weight is afforded to the delivery of housing in a sustainable location, in light of the fact that the council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of affordable housing land.”
The district council added that there will be a loss of some trees within the site and on the boundary however these can be compensated by additional planting that can be secured via planning conditions.
Agent John Bradbury, representing the applicant, argued the scheme will provide a biodiversity net gain, and that the site is allocated for housing in a sustainable location, and the greater number of dwellings will make more efficient use of the land and contribute to the district’s housing supply with affordable rental properties.
He told the meeting: “The additional 49 dwellings, affordable housing and infrastructure provision attract significant planning weight in favour of the scheme.”
Mr Bradbury added: “The adverse impacts of the development do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme on this sustainable site when viewed against the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole, and the tilted balance that has to be applied weighs clearly in favour of granting permission.”
The planning committee voted in favour of approving planning permission for the scheme subject to conditions and the S106 financial community contributions agreement.
Conditions include a landscaping scheme, agreed construction work times, a Construction Environmental Management Plan, a Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan, a Species Enhancement Plan, and a management and maintenance plan of the surface water drainage for the site.
Mr Jones told the meeting residents have become ‘fatigued by the process’ because it appears the council and planning committee ‘appear to have their hands tied in order to meet Government housing build targets’.
But he added that Ash Grove residents will continue to dispute a boundary issue between their properties and the site which the council stated is a civil matter and not a material planning consideration.