Campaigner calls for investigation into controversial Chesterfield housing scheme decision

Chesterfield Borough Council’s planning committee voted by a majority at a meeting on August 21 to approve the planning application for 275 homes between Duckmanton and Long Duckmanton on 16.6 hectares of agricultural fields near Tom Lane and Rectory Road with new commercial and community areas.

Despite some councillors having sympathy with residents’ objections to the plans, the committee granted planning permission for the development after it had been recommended for approval by planning officers and after two councillors appeared to have raised concerns about whether any decision the committee made might result in repercussions.

Keith Oxby, of Long Duckmanton, stated in a letter to the council: “The voiced objection by the three spokespersons was so compelling it initially seemed the vote would swing against the application when a number of the borough councillors raised their own concerns and sympathised with residents.”

However, Mr Oxby was then surprised with the planning committee’s decision to approve the scheme, and he has formally complained to the council that prior to the decision a councillor had allegedly and effectively asked the committee chairman what the repercussions might be depending upon their decision-making votes.

Two planning committee members, Cllr Kate Caulfield and Cllr Maureen Davenport, did appear to seek reassurances from the committee chairman, Cllr Ian Callan, during the meeting.

Cllr Davenport said at the meeting that she has seen what happens in the past when the committee turns something down, while Cllr Caulfield also said that they should not be made to agree with something because something has happened in the past.

Committee chairman, Cllr Ian Callan, sought to reassure the planning committee members about any such concerns.

Campaigners and residents’ overall objections to the scheme included over-development, the loss of greenfield land, the potential harm to wildlife, sewage capacity, and flooding on Tom Lane and Rectory Road, traffic safety and congestion along Tom Lane, as well as an increased strain on public services.

Cllr Barry Bingham said there would need to be assurances about drainage, flooding and mining activity, and Cllr Jacqueline Ridgway was worried about the lack of GP provision and the impact of traffic, and Cllr Glenys Falconer said she felt Tom Road is very narrow.

Cllr Caulfield also said she understood residents’ concerns but explained the planning committee has to take into account the expert findings of consultees who have filed no objections to the scheme.

Committee chairman, Cllr Callan, also acknowledged the speed of cars along Tom Lane but explained highway concerns had been taken out of the borough council’s hands because Derbyshire County Council has not objected to the development.

Following the meeting, another resident and campaigner Nick Otter said the committee asked if there would be repercussions relating to planning decisions and there seemed to be concerns about going against the recommended decision of planning officers.

Protestor Steve Dyson said he felt many of the planning committee had serious concerns about the scheme but they seemed to have to follow the absence of objections from the expert consultees.

Mr Oxby also argued some of the councillors voted against the scheme but the majority, who he claims were constrained by the rules governing approval of planning applications, voted in favour of the application.

He stated: “Local residents were stunned to hear the proposal passed and their concerns disregarded despite their validity, because those concerns such as road safety, flooding, health and education facilities didn’t tick the correct boxes on the rules for approval.

“It would seem that Chesterfield Borough Council are more concerned about complying with the regulations regarding planning application voting than the welfare of the citizens.”

The scheme applicants, Mr and Mrs Elliot, who are the landowners, aim to sell the land to a developer on the basis of the approved residential development.

Mr Oxby also stated in his formal complaint that in a previous heated planning meeting for a development in Dunston, on July 24, the word ‘bullying’ was used by one of the borough councillors on the planning committee who was concerned about the decision-making process.

Chesterfield Borough Council’s planning committee voted by a majority in this instance to approve planning permission for William Davis Homes’s scheme for 500 dwellings to be built near Dunston Road and Dunston Lane, between Sheepbridge and Cutthorpe, near to this developer’s relatively new 299 home Skylarks residential development.

Residents and Dunston Grange Action Group had objected to the Dunston planning application on 34 hectares of agricultural fields on the basis of over-development, congestion and traffic safety concerns, feared flooding, the strain on health services and schools, as well as the loss of greenfield land and wildlife.

Mr Oxby has formally requested in a letter of complaint to the council that it launches an investigation into the processing of planning applications.

Chesterfield Borough Council has stated in correspondence to Mr Oxby on August 29 that it will carry out an initial review of his complaint and that the council may contact him for more information.

The council also stated it will keep Mr Oxby updated and it will aim to resolve his complaint within ten working days and if the complaint cannot be completed in this time he will be alerted with the reasons for any delay.

It also explained that eventiually he can expect to receive a full written response which will make it clear if the complaint is upheld or not.

A Chesterfield Borough Council spokesperson said: “The council has received formal complaints relating to the planning committee meetings on Monday, July 24, and Monday, August 21. These complaints are being considered in line with the council’s complaints policy. It would be inappropriate to comment on these complaints until they have been resolved.”