Campaigners slam council decision to give green light to major new Derbyshire housing development

Chesterfield Borough Council’s planning committee voted by a majority to approve the planning application for 275 homes at Duckmanton along with a commercial zone and a community area at a meeting on Monday, August 21, despite some councillors expressing sympathy for concerned residents.

The decision was met with verbal outbursts from some frustrated residents who shouted, “What a load of rubbish, absolute rubbish,” and, “No backbone, goodnight and goodbye,” as well as, “What a shambles,” and, “It’s disgraceful.”

The 16.6 hectare site is on agricultural fields located to the west of the village of Duckmanton and north of the village of Long Duckmanton and it slopes away from Rectory Road to the west.

It includes three access points from Tom Lane, with one of these leading to a planned 300sq metre commercial zone, and the site also includes 300sq metres of land designated for community use.

Residents have raised concerns about over-development, the loss of greenfield land, the potential harm to wildlife, the sewage capacity and flooding on Tom Lane and Rectory Road, as well as traffic safety and congestion fears along Tom Lane.

Many are concerned the development will bring an added strain to schools, facilities, and existing services including GP surgeries and dental practices.

Similarly, Sutton-cum-Duckmanton Parish Council had also raised concerns about flooding, traffic safety, congestion, and the loss of greenfield land.

Resident Rob Rawson argued Tom Lane is too narrow, an undulating “rat-run” to accommodate the scheme and that the area’s sewage system does not have the capacity to deal with more housing.

He told the planning committee: “I cannot see any benefits for this development for the residents of Duckmanton and that is why you should reject this application.”

Campaigner Lisa Bosson argued schools in the area are already ‘over-subscribed’ and the scheme will bring a huge demand on other services.

Resident Steve Dyson said the scheme should aim to improve the lives of residents but he feels this is not possible if there are not sufficient school spaces.

Worried residents submitted 152 comments to the council and a further eight letters were read out at the meeting as campaigners held banners referring to “No resources at Ducky,” “Flooding on Tom Lane,” “discharge of raw sewage,” and “dangerous traffic junctions.”

Yorkshire Water has acknowledged the public sewer network does not have capacity and a feasibility study will be needed to determine an upgrade with suitable connections, available capacity, and upgrading costs.

The council also stressed the development will need flood risk management after the Environment Agency stated part of the site may be at risk of surface water flooding and after Derbyshire County Council records revealed 51 incidents of flooding on Tom Lane.

However, the borough council has stated the development is deemed acceptable in terms of potential drainage subject to consultations with Yorkshire Water and conditions which would need to be followed by developers.

Derbyshire County Council’s Highways Authority stated the housing development will not generate a severe enough traffic impact to prevent it from being approved, and the Coal Authority stated solutions could be achieved despite former mining activities at the area.

Principal planner for the borough council, Helen Frith, said the scheme is in a “sustainable location” and it has been allocated for homes as part of the council’s Local Plan with a share of affordable housing.

Ms Frith added there will be an area next to Cherry Tree Drive to provide a gap between Duckmanton and Long Duckmanton and any impact on nearby listed buildings is outweighed by the benefits of the scheme.

The development will include new bus stops on Tom Lane, improvements to Rectory Road bus stops, and junction improvements at the A632 junction. with a Travel Monitoring Plan, according to Ms Frith.

Council development manager Paul Staniforth said: “Development does not necessarily make flooding matters worse. In my experience development is one way in which flooding can be mitigated and improved.”

Cllr Barry Bingham said there would need to be assurances about drainage, flooding and mining activity in the area, and Cllr Kate Caulfield said she understood residents’ concerns but explained the planning committee has to take into account the expert consultees’ findings.

In addition, 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 a very narrow route.

Committee chairman, Cllr Ian 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.

The 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.

Tim Farley, representing Mr and Mrs Elliot, said the applicants are a local family who have always wanted what is best for Duckmanton.

He added that a need for housing has been identified and there will be improvements to deal with concerns about the highway, drainage and flooding, along with new landscaping and a contribution towards education.

Conditions include a £247,500 contribution towards GP provision, a percentage of affordable housing, a £36,822 contribution towards the improvement of the A632 Staveley Road signalised junction with a five-year £5,550 Travel Plan monitoring fee.

Following the meeting, campaigner Steve Dyson felt many of the planning committee had serious concerns about the scheme but it appeared their decision-making had to follow the absence of objections from the expert consultees.

Mr Dyson said: “We are very disappointed with the outcome. It was clear that many of the councillors were not in favour but they did not have the opportunity to refuse the planning permission because the onus was on them to protect an alternative plan of so-called experts.”