Council and developer clash over £29m infrastructure costs for massive Derbyshire housing scheme
and on Freeview 262 or Freely 565
The council is considering Waystone Ltd’s controversial planning application for the Clowne Garden Village housing scheme for 1,800 properties with 24 hectares of greenfield land for mixed-development and employment with community and commercial facilities between Clowne and Barlborough which has attracted a groundswell of opposition from campaigners.
Clowne Garden Village Action Group campaigner Dom Webb said: “Whilst Bolsover District Council are legally obligated to consult on the new viability report by Waystone, all it has achieved is to highlight in formal correspondence from consultees that the application is going backwards.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide Ad“As a community we are baffled at how this is acceptable from either Waystone or Bolsover District Council.”


The council has recently written to concerned parties, opposition campaigners and residents to say it received ‘further information and evidence’ relating to an ‘environmental statement’ which people were invited to comment upon although some have struggled to access the related documents outlining the nature of the update.
Mr Webb explained the new information concerns Waystone’s viability report with unresolved financial Section 106 infrastructure arrangements between the council and the applicant which involve proposed payments expected from Waystone to support infrastructure if the scheme goes ahead.
He added that Waystone claims in its viability report it only has over £9m spare – £9,705,418 – before any financial S106 contributions can be taken into account.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdBut the council’s report highlights Derbyshire County Council’s need for a £5m contribution for the Treble Bob roundabout development and the need for a ten per cent contribution towards affordable housing leading a total of over £29m of S106 contributions, according to Mr Webb.


Mr Webb pointed out the council’s own report disagrees with Waystone’s report and that the council claims supporting ten per cent of affordable housing and £29m of S106 contributions is a viable option.
He added: “We are pleased Bolsover District Council have finally engaged credible and independent consultants who have confirmed that which we have known all along, which is that ten per cent affordable housing is viable and so are the £29m plus in infrastructure and S106 obligations.”
Other concerned parties with an interest in the S106 contributions include Chesterfield Royal Hospital, Derbyshire County Council’s flood authority, Sport England, and Active Travel England.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdSome areas of related infrastructure potentially linked to S106 contributions with the proposed development include transport, a requested survey of an area below a dam, sports pitches, a footpath and a potential joint Barlborough and Clowne Parish Councils community consultation.


Mr Webb said: “The viability report and [the] council’s own assessment have done nothing to further this application. Active Travel England’s holding objection clearly sets out the application has gone backwards and not kept pace with national planning guidance and legislation.”
Waystone’s viability report, produced by Bespoke Property Consultants, advised there would be a surplus of £9,705,418 which could be used to fund S106 obligations.
The report highlighted political, economic and financial uncertainties as influences on Waystone’s position citing the war in the Ukraine, Brexit, the end of the Government Help to Buy Scheme, static interest rates and the ongoing difficulties faced by mortgage borrowers.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdIt stated: “Based on the output of the appraisal, BPC advise that the proposed scheme, on a 100per cent open market basis, would generate a surplus of £9,705,418 which can be used to fund S106 obligations.”
The report added: “The applicant has stated that they would be willing to enter into a viability review mechanism to re-assess the scheme’s viability at time when more information is available as to costs and values.”
A separate Waystone report, also stated the current costing of the Treble Bob Roundabout and Junction 30 works would total £5,829,671 which, in the absence of any external contributions, would need to be funded from the S106 provision.
However, the council’s viability report response stated: “In summary, we disagree with the applicant and find that the scheme is comfortably viable with the 10per cent onsite affordable housing requirement and the S106 contributions of £29,199,815.”
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdCampaigners, opposed to the scheme, claim the development will lead to overcrowding, pose a strain on highways and services and create flooding and some have revealed they have been struggling to find the new information and they are calling for more public meetings with updates for clarity.
Nearly 1,400 public comments have now been submitted to Bolsover District Council concerning the Clowne Garden Village planning application.
Campaigners fear the development poses a possible impact on highways and existing services, the countryside, wildlife, drainage and flooding, and many have signed a Clowne Garden Village Action Group petition with over 1,300 names.
Bolsover MP Mark Fletcher has also claimed the housing scheme could increase the population of the area by nearly 50per cent and that the amount of actual affordable housing will be negligible and in his own survey he claims 95per cent of 276 residents who answered questions were opposed to the development.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdMr Webb has also been pushing for a Judicial Review to challenge Bolsover District Council’s handling of the residential planning application and he has also written to the Secretary of State for the Home Department to consider the progress of the proposed scheme.
He has claimed when an original application was submitted after 2017 it did not match the council’s Local Plan at that time and after the application was delayed it was then allegedly included prejudicially in the subsequent 2020 Local Plan which would support its progress.
The council has, however, provided comprehensive explanations and a time-line claiming the proposed development has always been part of the Local Plan since 2016 and it has insisted that consideration of the planning application will continue.