“Extraordinary” meeting to discuss Derbyshire council’s defence of hundreds of rejected homes held in 'private'

Derbyshire Dales District Council called an “extraordinary” meeting held on Thursday evening (January 23) with just one item on the agenda, the Matlock Wolds homes public inquiry, set to start on Tuesday, March 11.

A council press release detailed: “The meeting will consider a report updating members on the current position on the imminent public inquiry scheduled to consider the refusal of outline planning application for development of land between Sandy Lane, Bent Lane and Gritstone Road in Matlock for William Davis Limited.”

However, the meeting was only held in public session for less than 19 minutes before councillors voted to continue the rest in private, with nothing discussed apart from objections being raised about transparency and openness.

Cllr John Bointon said: “I think we need to maintain openness and transparency with members of the public.

“The information is information we have paid for and if it is good advice there should be no issue with it being disclosed in the public domain. The advice is ours and paid for so surely it is ours to share.

“There are so many people who at least know the basis of the advice given that I have no doubt, without casting any aspersion, that the developer will find out in due course prior to the appeal.”

Cllr Sue Hobson, Conservative opposition group leader, said: “It should be held in public. We have got people who are going to be excluded now.

“I am very disappointed with that decision if that decision is to exclude the press and public and I will be asking that there are full minutes of the meeting and I will be asking for a recorded vote.”

Cllr Roger Shelley said: “It is all very well for the opposition to grandstand on the idea that they are the champions of public faith and that people need to know what is going on.

“We are talking here about serious issues which relate to both the reputation and the financial wellbeing of the council.

“If you are going to treat this irresponsibly then you can make those points but we have been given very strong advice from our officers that this meeting should be held in private so that we can discuss these matters without fear of information getting out which is detrimental to the council and therefore the residents of the Derbyshire Dales.”

Cllr Steve Flitter, the council’s Liberal Democrat leader, said: “I am disappointed in the comments that have come forward when we talk about openness and transparency. I hold my hands up.

“You are here tonight because I felt the same way but we were given strong, very strong legal advice that if we did not do this then it would weaken the case.

“I thought as council leader that it was vitally important that all councillors be involved and know what is happening here so that we can all take responsibility and we can all move together and make sure that we know what this council is doing.

“I am quite open in the fact that we should be doing as much as we can in the public arena but for this we are warned against it.”

The district council rejected plans from William Davis Homes for a combined total of 423 homes – 345 and 78 across a combined hybrid application on what is known locally as the Matlock Wolds on the northern hillside above town.

That rejection, in March last year, had largely hinged on the perceived flood risk posed by development on green fields and by large flood water collection ponds forming part of the scheme.

The appeal, to be decided at a public inquiry, will focus purely on the 345 rejected homes, a short report published for Thursday night’s meeting details.

It details that the council is retaining a slew of private planning experts from a previous appeals for the upcoming inquiry, to be funded from a £250,000 pot agreed by councillors last year.

Councillors had also agreed to spend a further £61,778 to extend a contract for the current interim principal planning officer up to March.

The new report says there is a risk that the total £250,000 pot of money may not be enough should the inspector decide the council must meet some of the developer’s appeal costs, and more money would need to be approved.

Numerous speakers during the March district council meeting referred to a report from a chartered civil engineer hired by Derbyshire County Council who had found that flood water collection ponds planned on the site would need to be so large that they could “pose a threat to life” to the downstream population.

More than 2,500 people signed a petition by the Wolds Action Group opposing the scheme and a total of 462 objection letters were submitted to the council.