Campaigner fears Green Belt is being sacrificed after north Derbyshire council gave go-ahead for housing scheme

Eric Singleton was disappointed after NE Derbyshire District Council gave the go-ahead for a housing development on a previously preserved greenfield Green Belt site, on Main Road, at Unstone.

The council’s planning committee approved South Yorkshire Housing Association’s planning application for 38 homes on Main Road, between Unstone Junior School and Unstone Plant Centre, during a planning committee meeting in December.

A council officer stated that the development will have only a limited impact on the countryside and that it ‘does not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt’.

However, campaigner Mr Singleton, of Unstone, who opposed the planning application with others, said: “Green Belt land that should be protected by council policies is at risk once it falls into the ownership of a developer. It is entirely undemocratic.

“Planning decisions are being driven largely by developers for their own end, and it encourages developers to buy up and ‘land bank’ more Green Belt.”

The affordable housing scheme includes plans for 38 terraced dwellings in three rows to be built for rental and shared ownership including two-bed, three-bed and wheelchair accessible homes with 50 associated car parking spaces.

NE Derbyshire District Cllr Alex Dale had also argued that the development poses harm to the openness of Green Belt land. He is also concerned that the development will pose road safety problems and that it failed to meet a justifiable, proportional need for affordable housing due to a previous development in the area.

Unstone Parish Council and Dronfield Civic Society also objected to the planning application because they felt it was inappropriate due to the development being based on previously preserved Green Belt land.

The parish council also stated that the demand for this type of housing had already been met with the construction of nearby housing at The Boatyard Site, in Unstone.

And the civic society also complained that the development will be in a dangerous location with a school nearby and they too were concerned because a new housing development had already been completed in the area.

Residents, including 18 people, submitted objections with numerous other concerns including that a brownfield site should be used before Green Belt land and that any concern for the landscape should outweigh any need for affordable housing which would result in the loss of a rural setting.

They were also concerned about an increase in traffic safety issues, the inconvenient relocation of a bus stop to allow for the development, and the lack of infrastructure in Unstone to support further homes.

Mr Singleton said: “Along with other residents in the Dronfield area I fought against the removal of the land from the Green Belt adjacent to the main road between Unstone and Dronfield and Southfield Mount.

“The process that resulted in this land being allocated for development in the Local Plan, adopted in 2021, was notable in that there were multiple irregularities in the assessment of the land. It should have been eliminated quite early in the Green Belt review process.”

However, Mr Singleton claims the council allegedly changed the rules to ensure the land could continue to be considered for housing development.

Mr Singleton claims the planning application contradicts several policies in the council’s Local Plan and in the National Planning Policy Framework that should have protected Green Belt land from a ‘speculative’ development.

He believes that a judicial review would bring the recommendation and the planning approval for the development into question.

Mr Singleton has written to the council’s Managing Director Lee Hickin citing what he believes are rulings and legal opinions that support his claims and that Mr Hickin has indicated that he would look into the matter.

In this instance, council officials have made an exception to rulings that Green Belt land should be preserved from housing developments, and that normally any changes on this kind of land should be restricted to matters like agricultural developments that support the countryside.

Mr Singleton said the council’s Local Plan states where an exception is allowed for Green Belt to be used for affordable housing there has to be a proven need supported by an up to date local housing needs survey.

He added that the local housing needs survey conducted by the developer in 2021, which is valid until 2026, included a need for seven dwellings.

However, Mr Singleton has argued that even though the developer and the council claim district wide data shows a greater need for more affordable housing, this data is allegedly not in the form of a local housing needs survey and any district wide demand data should not be applicable to a localised area such as Unstone.

He also claims the land in question was considered inappropriate for development during the making of the Local Plan after the council allegedly considered an extended development of the area to be a significant enlargement of the existing settlement and that this would have a serious impact on its character.

Mr Singleton argued that the council has changed its rules to ensure Green Belt land owned by developers could be used for housing and a residential development.

He also claims that this means developers can allegedly buy Green Belt land at cheaper agricultural prices but when exceptions are made the land can then be used for much more profitable residential developments.

Mr Singleton said: “NE Derbyshire District Council officials have ‘bent’ their own rules to ensure Green Belt land owned by developers can be built upon. I am sure developers are delighted with this behaviour. They purchased this land at agricultural prices and make a significant paper profit without lifting a finger when permission to develop is granted.”

In September, a farming family was refused temporary planning permission for a new mobile village farm shop and cafe on Green Belt, off Main Road, at Cutthorpe, because NE Derbyshire District Council’s planning committee had stated that it was an inappropriate development that would harm the character of this preserved greenfield landscape.

The council stated when considering the Cutthorpe planning application that developments on Green Belt can only be allowed in very special circumstances with exceptions including allowing for agricultural buildings, or appropriate facilities for outdoor recreation, or for proportionate extensions to existing buildings.

It added that the farm shop and cafe were not to be used for an agricultural purpose despite the applicant’s argument that it would have been a farm business, and the council claimed that this particular proposed development would urbanise and affect the openness and character of the area with the loss of dry stone walling so it was refused.

Concerning the Unstone planning application, a NE Derbyshire District Council spokesperson stated: “Officers are investigating a complaint by Mr Singleton. This investigation is being undertaken in line with the council’s complaint procedure and is currently underway. It will not therefore be appropriate to comment further at this stage.”

Other campaigners opposed to Waystone Ltd’s Clowne Garden Village planning application for 1,800 homes, which is being considered by Bolsover District Council, have also complained this proposed site is on a greenfield site that had once included an area of Green Belt land.

But Bolsover District Council has stated that following a robust review “exceptional circumstances” were cited allowing the removal of this area from Green Belt preservation.

The Government states that the fundamental aim of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open around urban areas and it is for council planning authorities to define and maintain Green Belt land in their own areas.

However, The Government has also proposed updating its guidance to clarify that council planning authorities are not required to change Green Belt boundaries to meet local housing need amidst discussions about proposed planning system changes.