This Special Planning Committee meeting has been called by Derbyshire Dales District Council to debate an application for a total of 423 homes on land between Sandy Lane, Bent Lane and Gritstone Road in Matlock.
The meeting will be held at 5pm on Thursday 28 March in the Members’ Room at County Hall in the town. The selection of a larger venue than the District Council’s own Council Chamber is designed to accommodate significant public interest in the application – and the earlier than usual start will give sufficient time for representations and debate.
View the full agenda and report at https://democracy.derbyshiredales.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=144&MId=1029
Land between Sandy Lane Bent Lane and gritstone Road in Matlock and we’ll come on to the details of the application in new course uh Just for information it’s a special meeting uh purely because it’s an additional one to our normal calendar of meetings in all other respects it’s
Exactly the same as our our other planning committee meetings uh before we start the meeting itself some introductions uh my name’s councelor Peter O’Brien and I represent the haage area on the council and I’m chairing the meeting this evening uh Chris Whitmore um on my right here is our development man development
Manager he will be presenting the application together with recommendations uh we also have with us Helen Mitchell who is our director of corporate and customer services uh krie who is our legal uh services manager and Angela our Democratic Services officer and uh we’re pleased to welcome sha Robson uh who’s observing the
Meeting this evening he’s uh recently been appointed as our new um interim development manager uh just a few housekeeping um points to make no fire alarm planned this evening so if it does go off please make your way out through the Emergen uh right first item on the agenda this
Evening is apologies for absence thank you chair got councelor sub bfor substitute councelor Franks councelor David uses substitute councelor Shelly and apologies from councelor Robert Archer councelor derot Murphy and councelor Whited and Edward Walker not arrived as yet uh thank you aler item two is Declaration of interests do any members
Have any to declare no that’s good now we now move on to the public participation part of the meeting this is where planning committee members have the opportunity to hear representations for or against the application now there’s a lot of you who have registered to speak this evening
And thank you for coordinating your approach to this um we normally only allow 1 hour up to 1 hour for public participation but because of the interest in this application I’m expend extended this period to fit everybody in uh but this will mean that I will ask
You please to strictly keep the time allowed for uh each uh presentation uh so I’m now going to ask our first speaker to come up to the microphone that’s counselor Jason farmer he’s going to be speaking on behalf of darale Town Council and Jason you have three minutes think those are switched on
Now good evening thank you for this opportunity to speak my name is Jason farmer from darale Town Council darale Town Council appreciates that this development is not within the parish boundary um our Parish boundary I should say however it is very close to our Parish boundary and we welcome the invitation
To comment on this application the fundamental issue of surface runoff drainage and seage management has not been fully addressed by the developer nor seven Trent a major reason for the proposal being previously rejected the development of this size would have a serious knock on effect to darale and the infrastructure within
Matlock and darale as I speak from great knowledge is already under extreme pressure an additional level of homes that this application is proposing is likely to see an increase of approximately 700 Vehicles not including Ser Ser service and delivery vehicles already using the congested chestfield
Road in and out of Matlock and the A6 which already suffers from major queuing at peak times we need to protect the fields on this site as it would also potentially risk the development spreading into our own Parish which is the Parish of Farley this is within the darale boundary
Darale Town Council feel that these fields should never actually have been included in the neighborhood plan and should be potentially removed as soon as possible in order to meet this High number of houses it it can only come of the expense of the environment if this devel vment was to be rejected where
Would it go darale already has a number of major developments in process with more planned currently all developments within darale are taking place outside the Peak District National Park even though 50% 58% of the area of darish Dales Falls within the park boundary alternative development sites should be sought within Peak National Park
Boundaries rather than this particular the site thank you very much thank you [Applause] counselor you councelor Palmer our next speaker is T councelor matl Town councelor David Hughes uh David you have three minutes please thank you Peter I’m speaking as leader of Matlock Town Council the council welcomes the recommendation made
By darish DED officer for refusal I would like to comment uh on the first and fourth recommendations the first recommendation points to the flood risk and the risk to Public Safety the developer has over five years failed to to provide a robust drainage plan and has failed to satisfy
Not one but two qualified Consultants one employed by the llfa and one by darbishire Dales the llfa consultant stated based on based on consequence of volume of water potential energy and downstream population we would expect these ponds to pose a threat to life the consultant asked for more evidence and
Agreed to conditions only when the llfa suggested that this application was concerned not with access uh with access alone and not with drainage gisher Dale’s consultant said proposals for raising attenuation Basin requires further assessment by the by the applicant if the issues are to be fully addressed the LPA needs comfort as
At outline planning that the proposed ponds will operate safely for the lifetime of the development this is not the case based on the level of detail provided and as such further assessment is not considered to be suitable for planning condition the developer has asked for more time to meet the concerns
Raised by the two qualified Consultants he has had five and a half years how much time does he require to Pro produce a design that works that is viable how much longer should local people bordering the site put their life on hold the fourth recommendation points to
The amount of affordable housing and the lack of a mechanism for ensuring that this will be delivered Greenfield sites should be relatively cheap to build on and should represent an opportunity for affordable housing this one apparently does not but on this site there is a major risk to the viability of the
Development and hence to the ability of the development to developer to provide the required amount of affordable housing the first arises from the unknown costs associated with a revised drainage scheme one that does not pose a risk to life and property the second arises from the way in which the
Developer has designed the first phase it does not take account of the undulations in the site it is a two-dimensional design on a three-dimensional landscape to accommodate this it is likely that the developer will need to undertake expensive Earthworks these will eat into the landscape and also into the
Viability of the scheme leaving less for later affordable housing there are other points that I would like to make concerning the sustainability of of the site at the top of a steep hill and the developers proposal proposed transport plan which will reduce car usage I urge the committee to accept the
Recommendations of the planning officers and refuse this application thank you thank you councelor Hughes our next speaker Julie Atkin on behalf of walls Community you everyone I’ve been a member of the wals action group since it was formed wag fully supports the planning officer in his recommendation to refuse this
Application and I urge the committee members to support him 5 years and four months is an extremely long time for people to have this hanging over them and the anxiety and the stress it has caused must not be underestimated we take exception to the following loss of a locally valued and
Beautiful landscape including the immunity of two footpaths Bent Lane and Sandy Lane which support the well-being of hundreds of people loss of biodiversity and loss of habitats for the protected species which rely on the walls loss of rare and irreplaceable habitats including ancient hedge RS and wetlands the scale and position of the
Surface water attenuation which has turned out to be a series of dams lack of affordable houses for local people the developer inability to pay the required amount of contributions towards essential supporting infrastructure because it erodes their profit margins leaving the taxpayers of The darish Dales to foot the bill unacceptable stress on essential
Services including local and Town Center roads and impacts on highway safety especially affecting vulnerable groups including school children over the years Wag has worked to present clear credible evidence to show that this is the wrong place to build we all know we need new homes but
They need to be built in the right places after nearly five and a half years the site is no further forward the walls is clearly the wrong place so please support our planning officer thank you Julia our next speaker is John art to speak on behalf of wal’s community
John you have three minutes thank you thank you chair and members for this opportunity I’m hner mrtpi retired I joined wack during the preparation of the outgoing local plan I am delighted that Chris has written a comprehensive report and is recommending refusal I support that recommendation and look forward to working in
Cooperation with the council at last a significant proportion of the hundreds of documents on the portal are Wags work or commissioned by wag housing housing is a specialism of mine over many years for the Peak Park and others and in consultation with the Dales Housing Authority at the local plan inquiry the
Officer said that the allocation of WS was an insurance policy the local plan group’s recommendation to remove it from the plan was overruled by the then full Council the officer and inspector declined to commission a search for a garden village despite possible sites and a national policy in
Favor Garden Village could provide up to 5,000 houses the officers at the time consistently declined to accept what has become known as the national park effect despite having been agreed elsewhere in local plans this reflects the fact that more than half of the council housing area is
In the National Park planning area where development is strictly limited to a few hundred special needs houses only elsewhere this genuine constraint has been successful in justifying substantially lower targets later the council failed to agree a partnership to gain access to derli land grant to support government policy on
Brownfield Cent National policy requires an assessment of need and demand but it’s not mandatory the council can take into account local harms local harm has recently been clearly demonstrated in the plan area I urge the committee to strengthen and approve the officer recommend of recommendation of approval and I commend
To you all the 17 reasons for refusal that wag have put forward repeatedly over the last few years thank you chairman thank you John thank you to all the speakers who suff have kept admirably to your three minutes as much appreciated uh next speaker is Sharon briten speaking of behalf of Wall’s
Community Sharon you have three minutes thank you I’d wish to address the matter of viability provisions of affordable housing and section 106 contributions in the council’s developer contributions SPD from February 2020 affordable housing is top of the three high priority requirements policy hc4 in the adopted local plan states that all
Ma major residential developments will be required to provide 30% of all dwellings to be affordable excuse me there have been a number of viability reviews of this proposal in the last three years in May 2021 the developers viability report stated that the scheme was unable to support any affordable housing all section 106
Contributions in April 22 the applicant then offered to provide 14.66% only of affordable homes and contributions of 4 A5 million but this was only on the basis that biodiversity net gain would not be required in the five and a half years since this application was submitted contribution requirements have now
Increased to 7.4 million pounds as we’ve looked into various um other things that have come up in the surveys the council recently paid for an independent viability review which concluded that the scheme could now only provide 4.96% affordable housing and contributions of 1.2 million or no affordable homes at all and section 10
106 contributions totaling only 22.9 million pound seen as the viability options have changed so much in the last couple of years alone then how will this stand over the nine years of the development we’re looking at outline planning only for phase two with no guarantee it’ll ever happen and it’s
Likely that costs will increase more and the developer plead further poverty as we’ve seen happen on other developments in recent years this is totally unacceptable to the residents of this town and it should be to the council due to going against most of its own policies we don’t need any more
Overpriced executive homes and the taxpayer once again being burdened with paying even more for the essential Services the average house price in Matlock is now around 10 times the average UK salary making it exceptionally hard for local people to afford their own homes we need more affordable homes than ever if the
Fundamental needs are not being met there should be no building allowed as it’s just exacerbating this issue due to the impact of the peak part we are taking the majority of the housing allocation in just 42% of the district which is leading to unsuitable and unsustainable sites such as this being
Promoted for development the lack of affordable housing unacceptable strain and already overstretched services and a loss of a beautiful area is just not acceptable if any site does not meet the council’s own high priority policy requirements it should mean immediate rejection of this proposal if it’s not refus the council will fundamentally be
Failing in its duties to the communities it represents as well as demonstrating that the policies are completely pointless if we’re not going to stand up to them when they’ve been challenged thank you thank you Sharon our next speaker is njel Carter on behalf of world Community
Uh njel 3 minutes thank you I would like to address the question of the impact on the local landscape and archaeology of this plan in application according to the mppf plan and decision should protect and enhance valued landscape which includes science of biodiversity geological value and soils the walls has
Been identified by darbishire Wildlife trust as a very important ecological site because of are habitats of principal importance and protected species on site it is also a locally valued landscape which must be protected there are two well-loved foot paaths Sandy Lane to the East and Bent Lane to
The West both of these lead to the forest which is open country and contains a very popular circular walk the development of the site would adversely affect those foot paths in terms of noise light pollution and visual immunity The Proposal is therefore contrary to the development
Plan policies and the MP ppf in relation to the impact on the landscape as well as a local views the worlds can be seen from distant viewpoints including hior riber and the IT of Abraham there are issues with the Contours and altitude from these different locations and the impact has
Not therefore been properly and realistically addressed the development site also borders several listed buildings including Wells farm with its three grade two listed bonds envelopment of three listed buildings in their setting will be de instumental to the Heritage assets these 17th century buildings represent the site in the revised
Hlaa scores poorly on the darbishire Dale’s local plan review of historical environments the County Council archaeologist noted that there are known historical lead smelting remains and has placed a condition that a substantial postc consent scheme of archaeological work is required he notes that the high historical landscape value as a very
Well presented enclosed period landscape development to the site and its effects on the list of building and historic landscape is contrary to the darbad Dale’s adopted local plan protecting historical environments quote her’s assets also make a significant contribution to the sense of local identity and a new development should
Make a positive contribution to the historical character of the area page 51 paragraph 5.9 dob shadel’s adopted local plan 2017 after taking these facts into consideration it seems to me that this application of granted would lead to the destruction of a site of significant historical value and create a blot on
The landscape of this fine town I urge you to reject this application for the sake of the town and future Generations thank [Applause] you thank you Nel Mr Rob Atkin again on behalf of w community chair members years ago Matlock might experience a significant flooding event
Once every 10 years or so but a major change in frequency has occurred it’s not due to River flooding but from the built area on the town’s Northern slopes climate change is a contributor but to further put this into perspective the number of dwellings in mat All Saints Ward without this proposal has
Grown by almost 15% in the last 20 years however if we also add three recent developments one yet to be completed just over the Chesterfield Road boundary this increase is approaching 20% more dwellings the cumulative impact this level of growth without suitable investment may have let may have had on
Key infrastructure is substantial plan policies this application fails include S1 S7 pd15 and8 suitable development in matlot should I say sustainable development in matlot landscape flood risk and aordable housing policy hc4 policy DS4 specifically refers to capacity in local suwage networks and nppf paragraphs 157 173 and 175 are not
Met in this application the drainage proposal includes a cascaded series of dams above the steep slopes of the Town Grant of permission even in principle before fully assessing the potential risk is utterly unacceptable and as has been recently pointed out reserved matters does not cover drainage attenuation has a cumulative capacity of
Up to 21 million lers that weighs 21,000 tons above the steep slopes of this town no breach analysis has been put forward maintenance and monitoring proposals are inadequate at the end of July 23 a panel engineer response on the attenuation mentions and I quote the exact wording
They do propose a Potential Threat which does not appear to have been assessed and also we would expect these ponds to pose a a threat to life and would fall under flood category a if they were subject to the reservoirs act there’s no mention of water courses in the
Application until the community pointed out this Omission the proposal to divert and CED water course is against llfa and environment agency policy and there’s a lack of evidence of accurate flow rate assessments the Durant Valley Aqueduct crosses the site and has breached Downstream of Matlock three times since
The application was submitted I’ll let you imagine the consequence of that risk time now precludes me from making further points but I implore the members to endorse the officer’s recommendation thank you thank you rob our next speaker is Jenny follow worlds community thank you I’m speaking as a Matlock resident
Concerned parent registered nurse and Senior manager at the national Guardian office for the NHS on the 7th of September 2020 a letter from darbishire County Council highways Department stated that there are significant numbers of school children that currently walk to school and cross wal’s road at peak times and
That this will continue during and after development takes place in a response to the applicant’s transport assessment the highways officer stated that the wal Road Junction will see a significant increase in vehicle movements which existing school children will be obligated to cross particularly during morning peak hour the traffic increase in the morning
Is predicted at 269 and in the evening an increase of 645 per. the highways offic clearly stated concerns over pedestrian safety during the construction phase of the development because of the significant encountered traffic encountered by pedestrians and school children particularly heavy Goods Vehicles predicted between 50 and 90 movements
Per day for the nine years of construction a freedom of information request submitted on the 8th of March 2023 highlighting emails from the highways where they stated and I quote we have witnessed a few dodgy moments with students crossing the walge road and have noted large groups of school
Children walking up and down who tend to spill into the road a lot traffic accident data is at least 5 years out of date and in the last year alone there have been two very serious accidents where a child has been knocked over on the chestfield road Communications from Highfield school at
Lumsdale site due to business of the The Junction leading into the school itself and following a risk assessment are advising parents to drop school children off on wal Road highways development control stated that although The Pedestrian Crossing was in the optimal position as it was at the top of the hill the recommendation
Is to move the crossing further down chestfield road with a new foot path on the opposite side if the current pedestrian Crossing is in the optimal place for visibility and it’s directly outside the school entrance why would you agree to remove it without proper risk assessment there is also the issue a
Lack of equality impact assessment to cover vulnerable groups and assess the safety risk this development poses to our school children this being overlooked shows a total lack of responsibility for risk assessment and governance for the protection of vulnerable school children as a result of the huge recent developments already
In the north of Matlock there is currently a cumulative effect of Highway Safety with roads operating overc capacity and to allow this development to go ahead would be wholly unacceptable thank you thank you thank you Jenny we now have Christine Gregory speaking up behalf of W’s Community uh I’m a freelance nature
Writer and phot photographer also an insect and mammal monitoring volunteer I’ve worked closely with the Peak District National Park Authority darbishire Wildlife trust and Butterfly conservation I’ve spent decades witnessing local local species Decline and habitat loss on Tuesday afternoon this week I went to look over the gate
At the wals and was pleased to see four hairs a species that I’ve studied for the last 15 years hairs can be regarded as an indicator species in Farmland as sedentary mammals with confined home ranges they have specific habitat requirements including shelter such as scrub rushes Hedges walls and access to
Woodland in addition to open grassland with traditional sword wild flowers and herbs that they depend on for yearr round forage brown hair numbers have declined by 75% since the war and so it was one of the first species chosen by the UK government to have its own biodiversity action plan
90% of species Rich grassland was lost during the 20th century with catastrophic impacts on Farmland animals such as lapwing snipe yellow hammer and linit where hairs have held on they can indicate a certain level of Farmland biodiversity on my visit I heard and saw two missile thrushes a song thrush Green
Finch linit and starlings also house barrows all of these are red list species this is a a unique place with its complex topography and valuable Mosaic of landscape features and range of habitats including both species Rich pastures improved pastures Hedges mature trees scrub and wet flush adjacent to
Matlock Moore and Matlock for its local wildli Wildlife sites the walls provides both a wildlife Corridor and a buffer between Town and Country in doing so it enhances the value of both of these sites we have lost 90% of Wetland habitat since the second world war through drainage and agricultural
Intensification so the extensive wet flush in the Ws has an important function of flood mitigation carbon sequestration and is home to numerous invertebrates Birds amphibians and some mammals darbishire Wildlife trust has drawn attention to the potential loss of habitats of principal concern these include lowland dry acid grassland
Purple more grass and Rush pasture these habitats are recognized as UK bat priority habitat types and are listed as habitats of principal importance in section 41 of the natural environment and Rural communities Act of 2006 the loss of these priority habitats will be counted to both local and National
Policy I understand that developers propose that the valley in which these priority habitats occur will be filled with contaminated soils and the valley remodeled it’s a fantasy to suggest that such habitats which have evolved over hundreds of years can be recreated the first principle in the mitigation hierarchy of the government’s
Biodiversity net gain framework is that unacceptable impacts should be avoided at present a strategy for mitigation and compensating for species loss consequent on development has not been presented I was only going to add that the Ws could be a wonderful site for nature recovery for all of us in this area
Thank you Christine uh next speaker Professor Steve Martin on behalf of all Community three minutes Professor thank you chair and members and uh officers um for almost 30 year 40 years I’ve been an agricultural scientist and an environmental consultant advising various parts of government universities and businesses I want to make a comment
Based on whether this site should ever have been put on the local plan on the basis of the climate emergency in my view it was a serious misjudgment of the devastating impacts of surface water flooding in Matlock its residents and the businesses it supports examples of which have
Routinely ex been experienced because of recent household developments climate change impacts on the water cycle by influencing when where and how much rain falls it also leads to more severe weather events over time we are now repeatedly experiencing the serious impacts of global warming the more heavy and intense rain we are
Seeing in recent years are only the beginning as warming Beyond 1.5° takes place we can expect and experience more of this much more rain and much more flooding enhanced warming is predicted soon to be anything from 3 to 4° this is because the levels of greenhouse gases are not falling they’re
Increasing carbon dioxide methan methane and the warming in impacts from evaporating water vapor and transpiration from vegetation in preparing for this meeting I read the most recent weekly environment agency bulletin on rainfall and river flows from March 2024 and this is what it said it has been another wet week across
England although slightly less so in the East and Southeast River Flows increased at more than 85% of the sites we report on seems hardly anything to worry about doesn’t it f framed in that kind of language but tell that to the residents of old Hackney Lane where I live where
Three to four new Springs have surfaced in homeowners Gardens and now pour gallons of water onto the lane and have caused the removal of a huge chunk of tarmac off the lane lifted the surface off and increased the depths of numerous potholes in summary surface water flooding is the most widespread flood
Risk in England affecting around 3.2 million properties it is caused by a combination of factors including intense rainfall soil permeability topography drainage system capacity and maintenance and physical barriers such as buildings but the assessment of risk is hugely difficult can ask you to even impossible at a local level because all the factors
Mentioned above have not been adequately researched in any way quantifiable by the environment agents which makes risk assessment hugely problematic and in my view impossible that’s why I object to this application thank you Professor Martin and next speaker is John treston on behalf of world’s Community John good evening John tresan retired University
Lecturer and member of wag flooding is a constant threat on the site Wag has always held that The Irregular and unpredictable floods seeps and boggy areas on the site are related to the complexities of the Rocks beneath it the geology of the area consists of a Chatsworth grit Bluff which is a coarse
Sandstone forming the highest ground in the valley and which overlies permeable Sandstone beds on which the site is located the Sandstone is grally but also lentic with inlier lenses of impermeable mudstone just below the upper Chatsworth grit there are Boulder head deposits covering the more gentle
Slopes these head deposits may act as an impermeable cap to the upper surface of the Sandstone forcing groundwater traveling through the Sandstone to emerge further down the slope than may be expected there is some landsliding in the area from the toe of which Springs may occur while the Sandstone bed is
Permeable allowing water to pass through it the inlier lenses of mudstone are impermeable and were laid down as mud in Hollows and stream beds as these lenses can vary in size shape and location water entering the site from the overlying Chatsworth grit sinks into the sandstone and moves downhill but if
Intercepted by mudstone inliers it can be held up deflected to another path or forc to the surface clearly the location of the lens is plays an important part in where surface problems occur currently details of their location size and shape are not fully known in this situation the flow of
Groundwater is rather like The Irregular path of the ball in a pinball game so creating highly irregular surface conditions dealing with such unpredictable resurgences is a whacka exercise of serious proportions the location or nature of much of the groundwater has not been determined different levels of permeability in the Rocks produces
Another potential problem within the Sandstone there are gravel deposits which are more highly permeable than the Sandstone should any excavation break into the gravels there could be rapid seepage and Rapid loss of water from the Sandstone creating ser serious Downs slope issues it is imperative that more details are known about the rock
Structures and water flows if flood risk is to be managed the application should be [Applause] refused thank you John next speaker is Colleen mles on behalf of w community CH for me speak uh I’ve got the representation from Colleen marles in my actual um piece do you want
Me to do it later when I do mine uh you may speak on behalf of Colleen mares wish I speak on behalf of colen mar you have three minutes uh Colleen thank you my name is Steve Wayne and I speak on behalf of Colleen morles um developers have tried and
Failed to build houses on the walls for over 50 years each time they have been refused and the many reasons for refusal have not magically gone away in fact they are most relevant more relevant than ever part of the proposed wo site was given a priority for all ation in
The previous draft local plan this states that this site is inappropriate for development due to the fact there are insurmountable constraints in respect of the key development criteria this was written by Mike Hayes in 2012 then darbishire Dale’s District council’s policy planning manager so what has changed what magic has happened
To make that part of the site suitable now what are we still waiting why are we still waiting for an answer what magical transformation has occurred with these sites in the intervening gear are they now less elevated easier to access have the volumes of traffic decreased have school places GP
Surgeries and infrastructure been improved to the extent that hundreds of extra homes will now not be an unfeasible burden on the existing facilities the short answer is no in fact the district council’s own local plan advisory committee voted on the site voted the site out of the draft
Local plan due to the many constraints only for it to be voted back on by councilors of that Con on that third time the very next week in the revised 2022 schla ratings this site the site now rates red for impacts on landscape sensitivity wildlife and biodiversity and Amber for impacts on
Suwage and infrastructure showing that more information is on showing that as more information is Unearthed the more unsuitable this site clearly becomes in fact out of 17 consulty responses there are three red and 11 ambers against this site schla 224 and had this site been uh and if the
Site had been scored this badly at the initial local plra stage there is no way it would now have progressed to be included so why is it included as an insurance policy for this Council there is a reason why planning applications for the worlds have failed for half a
Century the site is unsustainable undeliverable unsuitable and unviable and should be protected for future Generations thank you thank you Steve on behalf of Colleen Martin um sorry thank you behalf of Colleen marul we now have CHR Martin Christine do I understand you presenting a petition I have yes I’ll
Hand it to at the end thank you chair and counselors I’ve lived on griton road since 1991 I’m presenting an online petition organized by world’s Action Group the change.org petition has 2,662 supporters asking to refuse and remove the W’s application from the local plan to protect this site for future
Generations comments from residents emphasize the importance of keeping this locally valued landscape as a natural flood defense a huge carbon soak that also supports an ecologically diverse habitat for rare wildlife and plants they are extremely concerned about the increased risks from traffic and road safety the dangerously restricted access
To the site permanent loss of Wildlife and habitat and yet more flooding and sewage discharges affecting us all Matlock is already at breaking point it will put even more pressure pressure on the town’s creaking infrastructure including the overloaded Victorian sewage system which has seen many properties and streets flooded with
Human waste this is a plan that has not had adequate risk assessment done leaving the council and taxpayers picking up the costs long after the developer is gone the increased effects from new developments have clearly not mitigated surface water runoff and our community has borne the brunt of regular
Flooding events each year it poses a risk to life and has serious shortcomings in both its full and outline submissions the planning committee will will hear a lot of assurances from the developer that they can mitigate all issues a very convenient phrase on paper but residents have no faith at all that
The developers have an understanding regarding the realities of this site why haven’t statutary consules assessed the cumulative risks for all the sites in every way that matters it conflicts with both national and local planning policies and should be refused for development if the developer is so Keen to help the
Council meet their target to help with the housing crisis why have they reduced social housing numbers to the point they are non-existent their time money and efforts over the last 12 years could have been spent developing the many Brownfield sites that are still available nppf policies are very clear
Making as much use as possible of previously developed or Brownfield land there are no benefits to Matlock from this development whatsoever please refuse and remove this application it’s in your hands to do the right thing for our community and for future Generations thank you Christine Christine Christine before you
Go would you mind reading out the petition for the benefit of members of the planning committee please why this petition matters it was started by wals the Wags wals Action Group refuse the wals application and remove it from the darbishire Dale’s local plan developers want to put over 430 houses
And a Fast Food Outlet on the matlot walls the walls is 23.6 hectares or 5.83 Acres of locally valued historic Greenfield landscape high above the small town of Matlock it’s a natural flood defense and an important Wild Life habitat please help us get this application refused and remove this
Precious place from the darish shadel’s local plan help us to protect it for future Generations by signing this petition you are objecting to planning application 18242 I’m requesting that your objection is taken into consideration by do Dale’s District Council we’ve been fighting for over a decade to protect this special
Place from unsustainable and unnecessary development the issues with developing the matlot worlds are very serious which is why this controversial planning application is still on the table nearly 5 years after being submitted please help us to save this much loved place thank you for your support yes can I formally receive the
Petition from you and members of the plan committee will take this into account in their consideration of the application our next speaker is Peter Wild on behalf of W’s Community Peter you have three minutes Peter Mr chairman one very good reason to refuse this application concerns the appalling access to the
Site which highlights an utter disregard for the well-being of existing residents think of other large developments such as Bentley Bridge Road morage presentation Avenue stroke barley way stroke Pringle rise Whitworth Dale etc etc they all have easy access to a main road the proposed development is different possibly
Unique in that access is via grossly inadequate equate winding route through the heart of an existing residential Backwater this is a route where children play in relative safety however this Pleasant environment would be completely destroyed should gritstone Road become a through route serving scores and scores more houses it’s a double
Whammy exposing children to more particulate pollution as well as increased Danger from Motor Vehicles including lots of construction hgvs there will be many many years of dust fumes mud and noise it’s also a punch on the nose for the national planning policy framework whose core principles include
Quote ways to enhance and improve the places in which people live and the provision of quote high quality design and amenity for existing residents the full application also ignores these core principles some of the proposed units on this steeply Rising site will very closely Overlook existing houses thus creating a severe loss of
Privacy exacerbated by totally inadequate screen planting it’s a world away from the high quality wide spaces Shield building mored Pringle rise and barley way we strongly recommend that this application is refused thank you Peter and next speaker Mr David Ball on behalf of Wales Community my name is David Ball ba
Honors landscape architecture I fully support the officer in recommending that this application is refused however I would like to draw your attention to an important issue that was overlooked in the officer’s report the developer proposes to divert and CT 2third of the upper world Spring the ordinary water
Course that runs through phase one of the proposed development site into a sale which then discharges Von overflow into the existing cul behind Bentley close serious concerns have been raised regarding this swell and the potential for increased flood risk on three separate occasions the developer has attempted to establish where water
Entering the cul behind Bentley close goes CCTV surveys were unsuccessful due to a quote collapsed cul Downstream the Culver outfalls at a Divergence Stone on Wall’s Reservoir grounds this was discovered by a resident in June 2023 using an 1830s map and a phone the local flood Authority would
Notified at this time flow tests undertaken in December indicate the culbert does not discharge accordingly it is highly probable that it is collapsed in more than one place this is evidenced by extensive ponding surrounding the inlet of the Corvette during periods of heavy rain this is
Both a restriction of the 150 mm culv aperture and the collapse pipe backing up this leads to flooding across g gritstone Road even during normal dry weather conditions it is notable that more water enters the Culvert that eventually reaches the diversion Stone it appears that water is not only
Restricted but a significant amount is lost it takes 8 minutes for water to travel the 215 M from the cul to the diversion Stone it should take no more than 2 minutes to travel this distance the Culver cannot be repaired without specialist engineering work as it runs
Under properties and houses of note it is confirmed that water from the diversion Stone enters the seven Trent water surface water network via a manhole on Chatsworth Hall grounds there are three pipes running into the Divergence Zone only one of which is the upper world Spring it is not known where
A significant volume of water running through the other two pipes originates seven TR water schematics do not account for this comprehensive Network consequently the surface water pipe capacity assessment undertaken in January 2022 is inaccurate additionally seven Trent water assured the flood Authority and the developer that foul water from 78
Houses constituting phase one of the proposed development entering manle 6053 on griton road which then links into the 150 mm combined pipe on Chesterfield Road can be accommodated within the network the developer has no plan B this branch of the combined network is already overburdened and regularly surcharges during periods of heavy rain
In recent years this has resulted in the flooding of property insurance claims by business owners and a risk to Public Health thank you David uh we now have Heather Clifton Smith speaking on behalf of wals community thank you you have three minutes Heather my name is Heather
And I’m also a wag say a all I I live on Bentley close and my back Garden actually backs onto the walls there’s a stream behind the Hedge at the bottom of my garden fed from the woods 200 ft above the Wall’s Fields the course of
This stream has grown over the 25 years I have lived there and now has a very wide marshy area around it the water also runs continuously even when there’s a drought as was proved when the temperatures reached 40° 2 years ago the stream goes into the cold as we’ve just
Heard and then onto the diversion Stone just off Wellington close near to another Reservoir built in the 1900s the water then makes its way into Matlock via the drainage system and at Heavy Rain times adds to the flooding problems in Matlock similar streams are present across the walls causing the same
Problems I am surprised that developers did not find this water course in their site investigation there is a proposal to build extremely large attenuation ponds assign of Olympic swimming pools to control the water the potential dangers of these structures was reported by a panel engineer from Mt McDonald
Consultants I and my neighbors are very concerned about the dangers of such a proposal with the problem of over topping of these ponds a recent independent review of the jba consultant stated that proposals for raised attenuation basins require further assessment in order to establish that the pro osed Pond proposed ponds operate
Safely the recent built estate below asalan Treetops has attenuation ponds and there have been problems with the drainage and flooding since the houses were built including the local Primary School being flooded twice already the school was built 1800s and it has never been flooded before I’m also concerned and worried as
All my neighbors that the number of lorries used in the small local roads to access the Ws building site will be very dangerous to all residents there’s already a very difficult blind bend on gritstone road just before the access to the site and even with present day
Traffic utmost care must be taken on this Bend another problem is that a neighbor needs to sell her house in the last six months she has had many viewings from prospective purchases but as soon as they hear about the proposed development they withdraw their offer I understand this has happened to other
Residents Over The Last 5 Years all of which causes anxiety to the residents it is time that this application is refused thank you heather our next speaker is Mr Nick Elliot who’s speaking on behalf of Matlock Community Land Trust thank you chairman um also as a local resident In fairness um I think
It’s only fair to in the first inance uh thank the planning team for the report they’ produced it can’t have been easy with so many competing views on this particularly from the developer and and the residents and I certainly support the fact that they’ve come up with the right
Recommendation um I want to requote something that was mentioned by Colleen earlier and that is the quote from the local planning advisory committee which basically said in its view there were insurmountable constraints in respect of key development criteria and the speakers of who spoken tonight have able
Demonstrated what they are and I’m sure that the committee have taken taken due note of those I particularly want to to focus on um the traffic flow in and out of such a development and one of the previous speakers I think it was Peter mentioned um gritstone Road I I want to
Look from a point of view of Cavendish Road the biggest state along there the Cavendish Parker estate was probably conceived in the 50s and built in the 1960s it was a time when every other house if they were lucky had a moris miner or perhaps a mini and two car
Households were virtually unheard of in that area it’s completely different now if you put a Toyota hux onto the camish Parker estate in 1962 they would have thought it was a lorry and now there’s every other house has got two or more vehicles to put an extra what 600 Vehicles 700 Vehicles potentially
Funneling through the Cavendish Park estate it’s an possible situation no amount of public transport or cycle routes or encouragement to walk is going to change the fact that all that traffic ultimately filters onto Cavendish road that wasn’t a site built in the 60s it was built built in the
1900s uh early 1900s it is just too narrow it cannot be adapted to be any wider and all those cars just cannot get in and out of of that area suggesting that public transport will service that or is the solution via a local plan in my uh view is just a
Ignores reality now if I was to ask people to show a show of hands how many people have come to this site this site tonight from less than a mile away and have come on a bus or public transport to suspect not a single hand would come
Up if I asked how many people had walked there might be the odd one and that is with the reality of what will happen with this estate convenience will overtake the need to use public transport and they will try to exit via roads that are just not capable of that
Amount of traffic it collides with reality and when the highways authorities say there will be a little bit more queuing and uh and you know people will use public transport and that the congestion won’t be severe frankly I think Beggars belief and there’s a complete Distortion of what
The real real situation will be thank you chairman thank you Mr Elliott uh next speaker is Mr David ellworth today I speak as a chart civil engineer yes another one the issue and I raise lies within the planning officer recommendation ation report I am perturbed to note with
Respect that it contains wording that I would strongly advise should be amended whatever decision is taken at this meeting this issue is that the district council has commented on statements in the highway authorities on the highway authorities consultation response which they have viewed as soundly based and acceptable by the district
Council I have to make it very clear that this is no direct criticism of District Council in this issue raised the district council is left with little option to note but to note the contents of the highway Authority and comment accordingly however I am of the strong belief these statements will definitely
Be detrimental to The District Council in any future litigation matters in my opinion this planification opens a vast Chasm between the remage and responsibilities of both local authorities neither of which have any specific Powers over matters other than each other on each other remits are over the developer the specific issue
Raised is a separate civil engineering work necessary for this site these words can be described as follows phase one the housing layout plan for the existing Hillside two the listing the link road crossing of the Central Valley located on an earth embankment that is actually a dam close by to the
Above is also called Cascade of balancing P ponds in fact these are small dams all these separate Works do not contain any semblance of sufficient information from the developer to even consider an initial basic understanding of the problems to be faced my opinion is is that it’s absolutely essential to have
Clear fact-based proposals at this time available to both authorities to ensure the delivery of this site the consultation response is a planning process instrument clearly laid out in the government UK portal which makes it clear the very essence of this process has certainly not been addressed as specified by the County Council My
Overall views on the various items in Highway Authority consultation response and for those of the lead local Authority are basically on matters within their own remates and responsibilities my last comment is regarding how this whole process has been effectively subverted and and achieved very little to today I must ask
You to wind up please yes we’ll do especially in the case of the County Council authorities however there’s no point in making any further comments the only thing I would say which I hadn’t intended to is to actually add my recommendations to those that have been
Put already I concur with lots of what has been said tonight in my professional opinion David thank you please thank you our next speaker is our Member of Parliament Sarah D Sarah you have three minutes please good evening Mr chairman members of the committee this development should
Never have been in the local plan this is not a party political issue it’s an issue which is crucial for everyone that lives in Matlock I am of course delighted that your officers have at last reached the point where they can put before you a recommendation of
Refusal 5 and a half years is far too long for this application to have been dragging on that in itself could be considered an abusive Pro process it is quite right and it is indeed the officer’s professional Duty that the recommendations are based on material planning considerations but these need
To be full reasons with the information and the expertise you’ve heard from this evening I would expect the present recommendations to be U the reasons to be ex um made larger and to include all the expertise we’ve heard already since before my election numerous residents of
The worlds and greater area asked me to come and have a look I’ve met met them and I’ve seen the site on numerous occasions they’re determined to make the most of their arguments but what I was determined to do was to do everything I could to support them whether it is
Local or in Westminster for that reason one of the biggest concerns I had was flooding and this is a near the flooding is a yearly occurrence if not twice yearly on occasions for this reason I brought the flooding Minister Rebecca pal down on three occasions that is the
Level of seriousness I took it but I am concerned that the officers haven’t taken on board the outstanding work with the environment agency and seven Trent water the numerous um modeling plans that they’ve got ongoing and indeed the censes that they have in the uh Victorian system that we have I’m
Concerned that evidence is not ready and as such is not taken as a consideration at this stage I’m also concerned at the 12 million pounds that was spent to assist with the rebuilding of the wall in the town is that money to be lost if we overflow the system yet again um we
Know with storm babet we were just inches away from catastrophe again I’m fed up with walking around shopping myself and seeing the results of the latest flood which included feces and toilet paper at the foot of the hill this cannot go on and it cannot be ignored I’m also worried about the Flora
And FAA and the habitat Greenfield sites we should not be building on them when we have many Brownfield sites in the area and I’m also concerned about highway safety of the children in relation to the heavy traffic that would be going I’m not satisfied that sufficient information has come from
County in that regard however one thing that we cannot forget is an independent expert key consulty who uses the phrase threat of loss of life how on Earth can we be even considering this with the evidence that is um before us this alone should be enough to see the application
Refused I take it my three minutes is up for these reasons I thoroughly endorse the recommendations of the officers but that in itself is not enough you need to be clear as to how you refuse please accept the expertise that’s been put Before You by the public and please on
This occasion do not ignore the will of the people thank you Sarah thank you Sarah speaker Laura Stevens on behalf of Dale’s climate Hub uh good evening and thank you for having me uh my name is Laura Stevens and I’m a local climate campaigner I’ve lived here for 27 years
And set up the first climate group in 2005 I’ve seen many changes here in my hands are a couple of oh whoops Observer special magazines which I accidentally left on the kitchen table I’m very sorry uh I came across from to clear out recently uh and they are dated 8th and
15th of uh April 1990 that’s what set me on my climate journey and now 34 years on I’m really disappointed that I left them but uh 34 years old and here I am spous ing on again about climate change once more I’m actually quite bored with repeating the
Same stuff over and over but in general most people get it my wonderful colleague in our D’s climate Hub Wendy Buller who cannot be here today submitted our second comprehensive objection on the 30th of June 2023 citing numerous concerns about this development with regard to many different policies and paragraphs in
Both the nppf and the local plan too much to comment on and so much has changed since that local plan was put together in 2017 for one the threshold of 1.5° as agreed by All Nations at the Paris Cup in 2015 has been reached can be surprised that storms
Droughts heat waves and flooding have become the norm 11 years ago I helped Bill Maguire local science writer and professor of geophysical and climate hazards at UC to organize the first in the series of climate festivals in cromford and we called it warm wet and windy in that
Regard I’d suggest that the development we are discussing tonight is wholly unsuited to the site however much the developer were to attempt to cover all eventualities and I’m talking attenuation ponds here they would fail and why when it is so clear and the UN is calling for everyone to act against
Climate change does this development not contain homes fit for the future they’re not future proof there’s no renewable energy no on roof no sustainable eco-friendly materials listed there is gas instead of heat pumps no charging points are standard is there rain water harvesting are there Swift boxes integrated nothing planned to passive
House standard just houses which are too big for real local need concrete and tarmac a recipe for disaster perfect for flood creation especially at the top of town you cannot concrete over Green Fields where there are Springs and aquifers and not expect the worst and I’ve not even mentioned the loss of
Biodiversity insects on windscreens yes please climate campaigners do not gain anything personally when they make objections and call for Action We Do It For Humanity for the planet and for f future Generations developers put profit before people and Planet I’m proud of our district council the officers and counselors sorry about
This my father just died they have grown in my estimation over the years and they understand right from wrong the mistake was made when the site was incorporated into the local plan Laura I must ask you to wind up but our counselors will do the right thing and
The local population will thank them for it and stand with them all the way thank you thank you very much for that Laura now next speaker is Ken Parker on behalf of Matlock civic association Ken you have three minutes please thank you chairman the civic association has consistently opposed this
Development and our various reasons have been set out in a sequence of letters dating back to 2018 other speakers have made representations on issues like traffic flood risk affordable housing that we also commented on but I won’t repeat those points in this presentation I just want
To make three points which are at risk of being overlooked or not covered At All by other speakers firstly this is a Greenfield site that has been mentioned the government’s recently strengthened its policy stance on prioritizing Brownfield sites for development that’s something something new there are Brownfield sites
In Matlock which would be suitable for redevelopment but even though several have received planning consent most remain unused or derel previously developed sites are becoming available for New Uses all the time most recently various County Council sites but as long as planning consents continue to be granted for Greenfield sites these Brownfield sites
Will remain undeveloped and a blight on the town the local plan is due for and this strengthened government policy link to a review of potential housing sites a better recognition of the difficulties of this application site should lead to this site being deleted from the new local plan it was actually surprising it
Was included in the first place secondly we’re at risk of overlooking in some ways a nice point but an important point about the detailed design If This Were ultimately to go ahead then the phase one detail design shows what the developer proposes and although it’s clear that some negotiations have
Been held with the planning offices this is a very poor scheme for example much of the dwelling frontages are proposed as car parking there are long lines of equally spaced dwellings creating a repetitious Street Scene and only 6% of the dwellings would have a stone element while 34% are
Proposed for red Brown G brick work and that’s now been generally accepted where red brick has been used in this area of matot there was a big mistake we’re about to repeat if this went through like this there should be more reasons for refusal in this decision notice we’re
Pleased to see that our representations on flood drainage and flooding issues have been accepted as justifying the refusal of the application but the proposed reasons for refusal f focus on those issues make no reference in many cases to that very many other satisfactory elements in The Proposal if
This does ultimately go to an appeal there should be an opportunity for all the legitimate concerns to be considered collectively they make a compelling case to reject this site thank you thank you Ken our next speaker is Mr Paul hibbit B you have three minutes thank you so as a resident of morfield
At Cavendish we’ve been living there now for over 20 years we have flooded twice now U both times have been severe floods we still flood today and I’ve spoken to our neighbors who are also concerned of the flooding that goes on where we are we constantly have a flow of water that
Runs belond the back of our wall we have all had to protect it the best we can can our biggest fear is that they want to put the drainage tanks directly behind this how can this help when you take away the very many fields that obviously protect the flooding now and
We’re still flooding so by taking these away and adding concrete you’re just adding more danger to the households at the top of Matlock and flooding down the hill the second point is traffic have you ever been up on Cavendish on a weekend when the football fields are
Being used the length of congestion up there is shocking and you feel that by adding over 400 houses in this area is going to cause anything less than sheer Devastation up there have you also ever tried to actually leave that place when you are oncore firefighter and you want
To leave Cavendish to actually attend the fire station on a football day it is beyond belief not to say how difficult it is for the Emergency Services to gain access with the addition of more houses would be a severe risk for the ambulance service and the fire brigade to gain
Access to save life and property I cannot believe you’re putting this forward in the first place thank you thank you Paul our next speaker Mr Neil Frey Neil good evening and thank you for letting me speak uh I’ve lived off Cavendish Road and been a GP in
Matlock for over 25 years and I want to specifically just go over some of the issues with child safety that concern me and developed the comments made earlier by Jenny fellow you’ll know and I’ve discovered that the mppf states in section n that the following be ensured safe suitable access mitigation made to
Impact on road safety reduce conflict between pedestrians and vehicles efficient access by Goods service and emergency vehicles and priority given first to pedestrian and Cycles you’ll know that there are two entrances to the site taking the wals road entrance there’s a twice daily flow of hundreds of pupils ac across
Wals Road in 2018 Public Health England and rosper the road the Royal Society for protection of accidents published a report called reducing unintentional injuries on the roads among children and Young People based on 5 years of police repor traffic injuries and this identified that child injuries are
Highest between 8: and 9:00 a.m. and 3: to 7:00 p.m. and that 87% of these injuries are on 30 mph roads it recommends protection by creating safer Road environments and this might be addressed in this case by moving the crossing but it will place the crossing under the brow of the hill
And that 20 mph limit should be introduced and evidences their effectiveness but this is not mentioned in document ation and where roads are not 20 mph that separating pedestrians and vehicles provides safety reciting the crossing would not be separating children from traffic this would require a bridge or a tunnel finally the report
Recommends that preent action to prevent injury works best when it’s coordinated and I can’t see that any coordination with ph has occurred so far children are under the equalities act are a group with protected characteristics because of their age and the local council is bound by public sector equality duties
In its decision making and I think an assessment of the impact on child safety is missing uh the access is not safe or suable at either po point and I support the refusal of the [Applause] application thank you Neil our next three speakers are uh Dell’s District Council Ward members they’re speaking as
Ward members this evening and are not members of the planning committee our first Ward member to speak is councelor Steve Wayne Uh and Ward members each have five minutes to address the planning committee Steve thank you chair I’m Steve Wayne and I like the chair said I’m a member
Of uh the darish district council and also a counselor for matlot Town Council and I’m also the flood member flood uh warden for Matlock and or one of the flood wardens now I can report because we now have two however uh my name isn’t
Uh Colleen nor am I a wag well I would be tremendously proud to be any of those on the performance these people have done tonight I wish to commend those from the Ws Action Group and others that have provided compelling submissions in respect of this application wag is a
Committed and knowledgeable group of residents who over 5 years have challenged the unacceptable claims comments and decisions made by the developer their agents and certain statutary consules our our community has been significantly impacted by the length of time it has taken for this application to come to committee planning blight has
Affected the sale of properties where buyers have been reluctant to purchase properties for fear of having a Housing State estate the size of ashover built behind them for others the time scale has been signif has significantly impacted their health and well-being and I have heard a lot of about this as I’ve
Been the ward member where this development is proposed I hope planning members those everybody but also those that attended yesterday now appreciate that this is no ordinary Greenfield site it does have significant constraints to its delivery yesterday at the site meeting we were stood on top of a hill close to uh close
To Sandy Lane the water was saturated it was coming over the top of our feet that is on top of a hill in the valley where they proposed to um Culver this area that Mr ball alludes to there there are no records there are no actual figures
To know what volumes of water are going to be coming down this hill the the the actual s the CIT is blocked under there although the developers um Consultants say it’s blocked the darbishire County Council LFA would rather say it’s obstructed or restricted I’m still waiting for photo
Imagery that was taken at that time it’s being withheld because it might be detrimental to the developer that is what’s being given as a as a reply to me so these are the things that I’ve been up against as flood Warden I’ve been particularly interested in the impact of
Surface water the original surface water drainage plan was inaccurate and when challenged was reduced by 70% the developer claimed that the 7 7 Trent water surface water network network could accommodate 220 l/ second this was reduced to 65 lers once 7 Trent had had themselves assessed their infrastructure subsequently the
Developer has had to significantly increase a attenuation on the site which has negatively impacted upon the viability since the planning application was submitted Matlock has experienced four significant flooding events the Bentley Brook a highly sensitive catchment has recently had an areawide catchment assessment undertaken by the environment agency the results
Are deeply concerning they project that the noston place pumping station a vital asset to alleviate flooding in Matlock is currently running capacity but this will have to accommodate flows including those from this application which will double by 2050 that means that pumping station will have to evacuate 12 cubic tons of
Water per second and it’s only cond do six cubic meters at the moment this is greatly concerning there will be no onsite affordable housing for this de development this is contrary to the local plan this Council has a duty to develop affordable homes enabling younger people to remain in their
Communities and to offer downsizing options to others it is not the responsibility of this Council or our community to help bail out a developer who has failed to effectively assess the site or has paid too much money for an option on this site the developer apparently feels in recent correspondence surprised and perplexed
By the council’s decision to hold the meet this meeting so quickly I do not consider that 5 and a half years or 5 years and four months is quick the LPA have been given the LPA have given the developer numerous extensions which I’ve complained about personally to enable
The submission of a viable and deliverable solution to drainage but this developer has failed to do so I ask this committee to support the office’s recommendations as this is the only safe and positive decision for our town of Matlock thank you thank you Steve if our next Ward member
To speak is councelor Martin berot Martin you also have five minutes thank you chair and welcome or I’m pleased that I can make a presentation to you as members of the committee and also the officers and thank the officers for the excellent report to members tonight uh
This is almost a case for me of deja vu the world’s planning application and its predecessor have always been contentious since an earlier application in the 1990s and more recently this one determinedly opposed and campaigned against by the admirable worlds Action Group also local counselors and other
Residents ever since about 2015 16 when we believe the site was subject to a flawed analysis and shouldn’t have been allocated for development in the current local plan I congratulate all these people for their persistence and the evidence of Citizen science skills how can anyone believe that long-standing
Local counselors should should not have ventured a view on these proposals and thereby appearing to fail to represent the almost one almost the the concerns of Almost 100% of local residents who are predominantly concerned about highways and drainage matters would have been thrown out by voters and rightly so
But the fact remains that we are apparently predetermined surprise surprise at this point I must state that my wife Sue as Vice chair of the planning committee and also matlock’s County counselor decided she would have to to stand down from the committee tonight simply because she made representations about the world’s
Applications some six years ago as County counselor and at the request of council officers despite prefacing her comments with a statement and a disclaimer advised by the district council’s monitoring officer at the time and she and don’t forget she’s been a district council for over 20 years and
County councel for seven so she was almost bound to have said something about uh the situation on this site at some some time approval of this hybrid application would have a devastating impact on nearby or local residents mainly in terms of the local Road Network and the entire Matlock Bank
Drainage infrastructure in particular the Bentley bug catchment which already accommodates almost all of the runoff from both older and recent Housing Development and therefore already threatens homes I will leave other or rather we’ve heard um other more expert objectives to explain the geology and substrate structure of the site and also
The flood risk from surface water and foul drainage outfalls as well as a patently obvious Highway problems I believe it’s inexcusable and frankly inexplicable that the already totally inadequate Road Network and therefore vehicle access and poor visibility from the site onto Chesterfield Road from Walls Road and Sandy Lane to serve phase
One of the pro development has not been opposed by the local Highway Authority for later phases given that we’re talking mainly about Cavendish Road a narrow former Country Lane and one of the longest act in the district with only one access onto Wellington Street and exacerbated by Park vehicles and
Already gridlocked on a regular basis Surly that is contrary to our 2017 local plan policies S4 and hc19 the elevated and remote location of this site suggests that new residents would inevitably access Town Center shops and services by car regardless of existing bus services as well as the
Offer of an additional bus service and onsite shopped by the developer the damaging effect on the sites ecology which is typically semi-improved quite species Rich Rush pasture and an excellent example of a wild FL or Wildflower Meadows all of this if undeveloped is important for storing carbon and holding groundwater and
Therefore an essential contributor to combating combating climate change its loss would have also of course have an impact on insects birds and small mammals the significant landscape and visual impact of so many new homes on an elevated exposed site is another important justification for refusal given that it would be clearly visible
From Higher Ground to the north and west of matop including Salter’s Lane and even viewpoints in the National Park this will be contrary to policies S1 and pd1 in the local in the current local plan furthermore the air quality impact of almost 10 years of continuous construction traffic and noise would be
Inevitable and a danger to local Health another concern of Mind shared by our officers is the very poor proportion of genuinely affordable homes proposed amounting to only 14.6 of the total but I now understand it is now it is nil with a contribution to provision elsewhere which is I believe completely
Unacceptable finally it needs to be said that back in 2016 when the W site was allocated for development it was excluded from the then local plan advisory committee the former conservative Administration insisted that the walls had to be allocated as part of their program you could call it
To extend our main towns while their leaders rejected almost all new development in their own Wards therefore they made sure the decision was soon overturn by the full Council explaining exactly why we are and where we are today therefore I ask committee members to support our officer’s excellent
Report and vote to refuse this totally inappropriate planning applications for the reasons stated thank you thank you Martin our third um W member to speak is councelor Sue bfor so you also have five minutes thank you good evening and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you tonight as
One of the three Matlock Ward members as well as County councelor for Matlock those of us who live in Matlock know how important and precious the land known as the walls is in terms of ecology biodiversity habitat landscape and as a natural flood defense residents many of them eminently knowledgeable and profession Ally
Qualified have quite rightly had long-standing concerns about this development and to be honest have felt let down by those statutary consules whose Duty it is to protect us I cannot underestimate the dedication and persistance shown by local groups namely the Wes Action Group residents and matlock’s counselors including our own
Flood wardens councilor Wayne and lyway all of whom have questioned and challenged this development I thank them all Matlock is at a crisis point in terms of flood risk we also have an out ofd and inadequate sewage system increased traffic congestion and pressure on our Vital Services Etc the consequences of overdevelopment have
Resulted in serious and unacceptable flooding and sewage problems experienced by residents of HST Farm Lily Bank cloth Treetops Etc and indeed not that long ago we had raw sewage being found in the convent Boiler Room most concerning to me is the independent Engineers conclusion that the large structures so-called ponds
Risk the lives of those Downstream if these structures were to fail a breach would be disastrous you’ve heard tonight from speakers with evidence to reinforce the reasons for refusal put forward by our professional planners flood risk impact on the road Network Highway Safety threat to Habitat harm to the character
And appearance of the town and lack of affordable housing the development would extend the northern Fringe of Matlock resting in resulting in urban sprawl a visually intrusive development at the top of our town the site is clearly not in a location to enable sustainable transport in either the short or
Longterm sustainable forms of Transport whil it’s desirable and not enforceable and the inclusion of a cafe takeaway Etc will increase car movements cycling and walking walking down to town is feasible but up the hill I think not I’m disappointed that darbishire County Council highways do not consider
The impact of all these new houses as as uh previous speaker said severe stating that some queuing And Delay will follow cish Road for example is already a single carriageway width with car parts at all times we have poor visibility at Walls Road onto Chesterfield Road and
Congestion in the Town Center in terms of affordable housing our own policies require 30% we were offered originally 14.66% um and the reason given was claims of abnormal and inflated costs and I understand that we’re not offered any on this site to conclude any small benefits from this development are far outweighed
By the dis benefits the reasons given for refusal are robust and defensible I don’t feel I need to repeat them all these reasons are contrary to the policies of our own adopted local plan and the nppf as listed in detail on page 147 of the officer report I urge members to
Listen to our officers and unanimous unanimously refuse this application thank you for listening thank you Sue and our final speaker this evening is Mr Tom Dillon who who speaking on behalf of the applicant uh could could I just ask everyone please to extend the courtesy to Mr Dillon uh not to interrupt thank
You thank you for the opportunity to speak there has been a lot of Sound and Fury about this scheme but planning committee has aaz our judicial role and must take a dispassionate view of the technical evidence and give substantial weight to the views of statutary conses only having five minutes I won’t
Be able to respond to the points raised by the speakers today but I will cover a few key issues as you know planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise the mppf sets out that the proposals which Accord with the development plan should be approved
Without delay the site is allocated in the local plan for residential development and therefore the principle of development has been established due to the lack of a 5e Supply in the district the Tilted balance in the set out in the mppf applies however as we
Will come on to this is not a decision whether the planning balance or the principle of development is an issue for officers the supporting information is at the heart of the reasons for refusal there is no debate that the area suffers from flooding problems and residents have rightly raised this as a
Concern we are alive to these concerns and worked with stakeholders over several years to explore this matter I a town planner not a drainage engineer the timing of the committee just before the East bank holidays means our drainage consultant is unable to intend to give committee members an expert view on drainage
Proposals the llfa confirmed in their comments on the scheme dated 27th of September 2023 that they were satisfied that planning permission could be granted subject to conditions no changes to the scheme have been made since that date we have provided a response to the matters raised in the jba report and
Considered that the drain proposals are appropriate for the site I note that the LFA have not commented on our response to the jba report this is a hybrid application with phase one in full and the remainder in outline outline applications are a normal part of delivering development and allow for principles to be
Established with detailed designs provided as part of reserved matters applications or in the case of drainage a condition these will be fully scrutinized by the LPA and statutary consules and can be refused if the proposals do not meet the required standards this committee and the planning inspectorate have applied pre-commencement drainage related
Conditions to a number of outline or hybrid planning appc ations previously as such it is our view that reason for refusal is controllable by condition and Falls away in relation to the second reason for refusal AR ecologists has provided response to darbishire Wildlife trust setting out that the lining of the
Ponds will not affect the translocation of Rush pastures this reason for refusal therefore Falls away we consider an appropriate drainage strategy has been provided for the outlined section of the site this is controllable by condition along with the other elements of the scheme as such the LPA can scrutinize
The impact on the character and appearance of the area and reason for refusal three also falls away in relation the reason for unfortunately due to the significant increase in financial contributions required for matters such as education and highways the scheme is no longer able to provide affordable housing this is the
Conclusion of one of the two scenarios considered by the lpa’s own viability expert in his report dat 7th of November 2023 the section 106 agreement can include a mechanism to ensure fa that phase one addresses its full impact and and as such reason for refusal fall Falls away officers have confirmed that the
Scheme is sustainably located and is acceptable in relation to the following matters landscape transport and access in accordance with the highways authorities comments historic environment ground conditions and contamination air noise and vibration and climate change the scheme will deliver a net gain in biodiversity and the wildlife trust was satisfied with
The scheme subject to condition the scheme will provide a number of benefits which need to be given substantial weight in the decision these include the provision of over 400 high quality homes including solar panels and EV charging points in a first tier settlement a substantial economic benefit including almost 100 full-time
Equivalent construction jobs and 20 full-time equivalent jobs in the local Center the delivery of a publicly accessible Countryside Park and a significant amount of other Green Space the provision of ponds to address address Overland flows from outside our site which will slow down the time T the
Time taken for rainwater to flow into the river durent the committee have to make decisions in line with Section 386 of the 2004 planning and compuls Purchase Act and the council’s Constitution the site is allocated for development in the local plan and there is not a 5-year
Land Supply meaning the tilt of balance supplies applications which cord with the local plan should be approved without delay where the officers consider there is inff ient information addition additional information is being provided as such it is our view that there is sufficient information available to you to enable approval of
This application thank [Applause] you uh thank you Tom that concludes the public participation uh part of the meeting and um Chris mmore our development manager will I’m sure be referring to uh a number of the points that have been made by speakers um could I thank all the
Speakers um from the first to the last for the way in which you’ve uh informed uh planning committee uh members this evening and can I also thank all those who have contributed any way to the material uh which the uh speakers have have laid before us I’m going to adjourn the meeting now
For um time that say going to ajour the meeting for uh until till uh 7:00 um to allow us a short Comfort break as I mentioned the the toilets uh can be found out of the doors behind you and to the left where there’s disabled toilet there’s also a toilet facility
Through the doors on my left and up to the right so committee members can we please may be about by 7:00 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
Councelor Burton David councelor butle Neil right uh welcome back everyone we now move uh on to item 4.1 on the agenda which is to consider application 18 Stoke 012 for two stroke eia uh eia instantly stands for environmental impact assessment for those who wonder and this is an extra requirement of government for
Applications of this nature uh the application is what’s called a hybrid uh what that means very simply is that it’s a combination of a full application so full details of what is proposed and an outline line it comprises an outline proposal for up to 345 dwellings Class E commercial units
Including retail and The Cafe restaurant a hot food takeaway open space including a country Park and play area landscaping and water attenuation and a full application for 78 residential units with Associated Act access open space landscaping and surface water attenuation as I mentioned above the application is accompanied by an environmental
Statement since the committee agenda was published a number of further representations have been received and copies have been circulated to committee members together with the officers response these consist of one email from the applicant a letter from the applicant’s legal council and three uh representations from sorry and six
Representations from members of the public three of which are non-attributable I need to give PL members a few minutes to digest these late representations and if they do prompt any questions can you please keep this until after uh Christmas with more as gim his presentation so a few minutes
Members to digest the late representations for for EX e thank thank you colle thank you colleagues uh as I said I’m now going to ask Chris Woodmore our development manager to present the application together with his recommendations and uh Chris will also refer to uh key aspects of the L
Representations and I’m sure to uh certain of the issues raised by the speakers Chris thank you chair um Raised by the the council’s appointed independent drainage engineer and they’ve also um sought to address concerns raised by darish Wildlife trust those comments have been provided um in in summary form in the late representation sheet but they have been um uploaded to the council’s website and um members have had opportunity to to
Fully consider those comments the applicant also um points to their intention to revisit viability and that came after um their knowledge of of this matter being considered at planning committee this evening officer’s view um on that is that the viability of the the application remains a concern and I’ll
Explain um this the reasons for that shortly um but there are still other fundamental issues with the application and um the require M to continue to um act or to continue to be proactive and positive um is considered best served in this case by issuing decision on this application at the earliest
Opportunity and that’s because there are significant shortcomings and fundamental concerns with the application and to reenter into discussions on viability and some of the other concerns that have been raised um would be futile in that that respect and we also have to bear in mind and the last greed extension of
Time which was on the 1st of of no November with in respect of this application I think it’s really important for an application of this scale to be heard at local level and there’s a danger that if we don’t make a decision that um a decision will be
Taken by the planning specture because the applicant would have a right to appeal against non-determination so obviously that’s had a bearing on us taking this this matter to to committe this evening the applicant has referred to there without prejudice offer to um late in 2023 with regards to the amount of
Affordable housing that was offered up to be delivered across the development site and um the level of developer contributions to be to be provided um at the time that they presented without prejudice offer to us they um explained that they had not updated the the values
And costs that were adopted by um our own independent viability experts in in 2023 just to keep the um sensitivity testing straightforward with regards to to viability and we accepted that position has been a fair and reasonable one however our um independent viability expert did say that um based on economic
Conditions at that time um a reduced level of affordable housing and developer contributions explained by some of the the speakers this evening was was a justifiable position the applicant has um referred back to those comments and has put forward as part of this application um before members this
Evening that they no longer now wish to provide any affordable housing but will make um the required level of of developer contributions and we need to give that consideration officers um are of the view that the whole approach to viability on this site is flawed in that
Viability has been looked at as a whole but the development is presented in in phases we’ve got a full application and then we’ve got later outline parts of the application there are significant abnormal costs associated with with developing this this site and a lot of those abnormal costs are associated with
The later phases and I think to look at viability holistically in that way is is a flaw because we could find ourselves in a situation where phase one which is applied for in full is built out and we don’t deliver the requisite or the um the level of affordable housing it could
Potentially be VI made just based on that phase alone that’s a significant shortcoming with with this particular application so you’ll note in the late representations that um there’s a typographical error in relation to the first reason for refusal that members need to be mindful of so in the um the
Agenda this evening there is reference to policy S8 of the adopted darish Dell’s local plan that should be pd8 which deals with flood risk and we’ve corrected that in the late representation sheet and if members reminded to um refuse permission in accordance with officer recommendation
It would be on the basis in the respect of reason for refusal number one on the basis of non-compliance with policy S1 and pd8 of the adopted Dale’s local plan in respect to reason for refusal number four that has changed slightly and members need to have regard to the
Revised wording of reason for refusal number four and you’ll note that um there’s two elements to it because in reducing the um the affordable housing offer the applicant has also made it clear that they do not want um any review mechanisms in any Associated section 106 agreement or any clawback
Provisions and for a development with significant abnormal costs such as this and over a significant build um program over a 9-year period we feel that that’s unacceptable um because in nine years time I’m sure economic conditions will be completely different um house prices
May go up it may go down um but we feel that as an authority in order to be able to get a fair deal that we should consider what those sales values are at that time and if there is additional profit to be made that that should be spent on delivering affordable housing
And that’s a significant issue for us hence why um viability features as a reason for refusal inspected this application so if members were minded to refuse the application it would be on the basis that um condition sorry reason reason for refusal number four would um would follow that set out in the the
Late representation sheet and that states the application does not consider or include a mechanism to secure the level of affordable housing across the different phases of the development that can potentially be viably made and the applicant is not willing to include review mechanisms and clawback Provisions in any legal agreement the
Development therefore fails to maximize the delivery of affordable housing on this strategically important site and across the plan area cont requirements of policies S10 and HC for of the adopted Dale’s local plan so if members were minded to accept officer recommendations need to have regard to those changes to the reasons for
Refusal um i’ just like to draw members attention to other late representations that have been received the council has received comments from the applicants legal Cel um again expressing surprise that the application has been considered a committee um they considered the case officer has approached the assessment of
The application with a closed mind and has not given the applicant enough notice of the committee to be able to address officer concerns citing seven working days notice um in in response to that officers have stated that um the applicant was a made aware of the provisional committee date on the 8th of
March and they only um identified that they were considering reviewing viability after they were notified of that potential committee date um the applicant has also had opportunity to present additional information to us which has been considered um in the L representation sheet and as previously set out doesn’t address the fundamental
Um concerns that we have with the application um we have also um looked at viability and we’ve looked at all of the outstanding issues in the round and that’s something that is not picked up in the in the the council’s legal letter that we’ve we’ve received we’re happy that we’ve robustly looked
At this application the application has been pending consideration for 5 years um officers have you know given the applicant ample time to address concerns and we’re in a position where we feel that the issues associated with the application are um so significant that they can’t be overcome um hence while
We’re presenting this application um before you this evening for determination we’ve also received representations from the Lo from the public which members have had time to read um at the meeting this evening and this was circulated and made available on the the council’s website earlier today turning to the
Application um the chair has set out the the nature of the application it is a hybrid planning application so it’s split into two parts we’ve got a full part and we’ve got an outline part to the application current slide shows the extent of the application Site Area um the application
Site Area comprises land covering just under 24 hectares to north of Matlock Beyond existing residential development it includes a series of sloping pastoral Fields inspected by drystone walls this plan shows the layout of the full part of the application this seeks permission for 78 dwellings um we
Undertook a visit to the site yesterday we spent a lot of time looking at the site The Proposal um the constraints and um the impacts of the potential impacts of this development on on the environment um The Proposal is to form um an an access through the site for
Which will form a Contin continuation of gritstone road with a new priority Junction being created at um at gritstone Road um onto Direction traffic onto wal Road The Proposal is to widen the carriageway slightly um to um provide at Le well 6 meter car wide carriageway to accommodate two-way
Traffic The Proposal is to continue the street scene into the development site and as the um Road branches left that provides a link to the later phases of of of development this full application seeks permission for 78 dwellings you can see the extent of development and the layout
Of that development and its relationship to existing um houses on on gritstone road members were able to judge the the impacts of of those relationships yesterday and had a feel for the the scale of development and the proximity of of the houses to to existing existing properties um there is an area of
Woodland to the north of the site which is to be maintained officers have negotiated revisions to the layout to ensure that the um the Woodland isn’t adversely affected by by the development there’s appropriate space um to ensure the trees are appro afforded appropriate protection we have two fairly large um
Depressions in the area of open space one of which is an attenuation Basin um and then a slightly smaller attenuation Basin um to the rear of the the properties on on Bentley close speakers mentioned um materials this plan although I appreciate it be difficult to pick out the detail on the
On the presentation shows the distribution of materials across the site the intention is that the properties fronting Sandy Lane will be constructed in natural um Stone slightly different appearance to reflect the character of um development that you see along Sandy Lane but clearly the development will form part
Of a a larger estate of of Housing and a relatively new new housing estate Beyond those properties it’s proposed to have a transition of of bricks from um a buff brick a lighter buff brick to a darker buff brick um to um reflect some of the the Brick
Colors and tones that you see on on existing development in that area so just to clarify the intention is not to have any any red brick on this s it is to be constructed in stone um with with buff buff bricks um this gives you an
Indication of the the houses on um well 3D interpretation of the houses on Sandy Lane and the view that you’d have of those we’ve then got um the view of the streets to seen along gritstone road so you can see there pairs of houses um and the houses rise in height slightly at
The central part and where we’ve got two and a half story properties with with dmal Windows some render but then buff buff brick you got there an artist impression of the the attenuation features on the on the right hand side we’ve got then let’s go back aside
Some more Street Scenes which show you the um General appearance of the houses fairly traditional in terms of appearance and and form some variety of materials use of traditional details including chimneys and um porches again more of the same pairs of of semis there some Terrace properties but fairly traditional and simple in
Their built form and appearance individual house types I’ll flick through these because there’s an awful lot of them it just gives you a feel for the type of of architecture that will be adopted adopted on on this particular site okay then we’ve got detailed Landscaping um proposals for the
Side this shows um additional tree planting around the the Woodland area an extension of that Woodland area Westward um we’ve also got a landscape buffer between existing development along gritstone Road and the the application site it’s a relatively narrow margin with with tree planting in there which will be maintained by a management
Company would fall outside of privately owned Gardens to provide a bit of a buffer between the proposed dwellings and the existing properties where houses Sit Close to development site officers have have negotiated um on the type of houses and where houses are Sit Close to development SES proposed to have a
Series of bungalow um given the closer proximity to ensure there’ll be no unacceptable overbearing um or loss loss of privacy should say overbearing effects um that continuation there of of that Woodland sorry of that wild landscape buffer along that that southern boundary so in terms of the the later
Phases of development so the first phase which is applied for in fall is for 78 houses we then got the um second phase which is the part of the site outlined in yellow I don’t know if you can pick that out on the the presentation that
Includes the Link Road and the Link Road um to Pinewood Road must be delivered before occupation of the 150th dwelling um to satisfy the relevant requirements of the um the policy in the in the development plan with the link road comes an additional 100 houses we then move to phase three
Which includes the local Center and a further 130 dwellings and then we’ve got phase four on the far western side of the site which is the further 115 dwellings we have here a plan showing the um the density um of the development we’ve got higher density in
The red area um that you can see on the the plan on the presentation we’ve then got areas of low density represented by the purple areas and the brown areas medium medium density development we then have the proposals for drainage um we have an attenuation Pond um serving the
First phase of development we have a proposal to divert the existing water course um Springfed water course that crosses phase one land um to be intercepted by the drainage infrastructure on site to discharge to its current outfall location um with capacity built in to deal with um any
Exceedence of of that outfall um with a small what was a swell extended to be a a shallow attenuation Basin on that southern side you’ll note from the the late representations received and um the comments in the officers report that there’s concerns about the assumptions made in terms of the
Amount of water um that already crosses the site and will effectively by be cted by this proposed development and whether or not we can be satisfied with any confidence that attenuating additional water in that location will not result in flooding elsewhere and that remains a concern of of officers for the later
Phases of development we’ve got what are rather large um attenuation features in the area of open in space serving this development sorry let’s go back a slide depicted here in blue um you’ve got basins one and two on the Northern side of the site those basins are purposely
Constructed to deal with surface water flows from a a catchment outside of the development site so on Higher Ground um however the issue we have with that is that um it doesn’t it doesn’t look at a range of designed scenarios um deal with climate change um and whilst the
Applicant has made the point that well it offers betterment in terms of flows already make the way onto the development side and they’re under no obligation to attenuate those flows um what we have to bear in mind is this is an engineered solution and these water features will retain water um they’ll
Fill up uh obviously climate change is is with us we’re experiencing wetter conditions there’s concerns about drain the time drain down time of those basins there’s concerns about um the Su succession flooding events that we have or storm events that we have um and the implications that that could have on those
Basins um overflowing potentially and issues of seage from one Basin to another and how that may affect the attenuation basins which are basins three and four which will serve development flows there remain significant ific concerns about the drainage proposals and um the potential implications that they could have on
Flooding um in in the locality that shows you an indicative master plan of the site that indicates that potentially the development is is achievable um based on the the amount and nature of development that’s put forward and then we come on to photographs of of the
Site we did visit the site and spent an awful lot of time discussing the the proposals um members appreciated where the um the areas of protected Woodland were we have got a Heritage we’ve got a number of Heritage assets engaged which are set out in the the officer’s report
We’ve got wald’s Farmhouse and actually I will go back a couple of slides Walt’s Farmhouse is um be difficult pick out the detail here is POS positioned on the southern edge of the development site and officers have expressed concerns about the setting of that building and the um applicant has considered that and
Provide provided a a sve of or indicated a swaave of open space um to provide a connection to the countryside that would have historically been associated with with this Farmhouse who forms part of its its setting in terms of officers assessment of this application we do recognize that
The site is currently allocated in the plan and um we recognize that the development plan sets out our um objectives in respect of delivering housing and employment needs to to meet the district’s um requirements and objectively assessed needs in its evidencebased documents that underpin the the local
Plan however we have to be satisfied that the development is deliverable this despite being um allocated in the plan and complies with all other policies in in the development plan in order to achieve sustainable development and that’s where we have significant concerns for the reasons stated in in
The officer’s report um it’s unusual in that this application is um an application for environmental impact um environmental impact assessment um development which is accompanied by an environment Al statement and that’s in recognition that um the um the the the development is likely to have um environmental significant potentially significant
Environmental effects so we do need to be satisfied that they have been appropriately addressed um the application was registered by the Council on the 19th of November 2018 um with there’s been various rounds of consultation members of the public May question why has it taken this long
For this application to be presented to to members and and this committee um there’s a number of reasons for that um there’s been a change in position in terms of the consultation respons received from from consules there was a flooding event in 2019 um we had a viability argument
Presented to us and we never had um conclusive comments from some of the the consules and we’ve tried to work proactively and constructively with the applicants try and work through through those and in terms of the officer recommendation um you’ll note from the officer report that we’ve looked at the
Um the various chapters of the environmental statement and we’ve concluded that certain elements of the application are potentially acceptable um but the reasons for refusal Focus specifically on drainage and um the applicant or sorry the local plan Authority not being satisfied that development can be delivered without resulting in flood risk on site
Elsewhere or presenting unacceptable risks to Public Safety there’s concerns about um the translocation of habitat in the sorry translocation of habitat of principal importance within the attenuation features features and basins on site we don’t know the final construction of these um these basins habitat of principal importance is
Separated out from other um habitats as being being of particular importance when we look at biodiversity and it’s important that um translocation of such habitat takes place to ensure there’s no unacceptable loss of of biodiversity and we haven’t got details of the final design of the basins we
Don’t know how deep they need to be um to function safely to satisfy as there wouldn’t be an unacceptable risk to the to the public to deal with seepage and the requirement for for lining in the ponds whether that’s in part or um you know comprehensive lining of the ponds
And whether in such circumstances habitat the rush pasture in this particular case can be successfully translocated um so we’re recommending refusal for for that reason there’s also concerns about um the Link Road and the construction of that across Valley feature and um the engineering required um the engineering Works associated with
The construction of the um the basins themselves what that might look like in in landscape terms we just haven’t got enough information to be able to be fully satisfied there won’t be adverse impacts on on the carriage and appearance of this part of of mat lock and the final reason relates to to
Viability and for the reasons that I expressed when um when referring to the late representations the beginning of of my presentation at this stage I I’ll just quickly flick through photographs um just for members benefit that didn’t visit the site I appreciate that these are just fields and it’s difficult to understand you
Know where you’re sitting and S if there’s anything of of relevance I’ll point that out so this is the The Pinewood Road accessing to the site on the far western side you can see the um the Woodland um Beyond just CED on High Ground I think that’s a view of wal’s
Farmhouse in the in the distance there’s a closer view shows some boundary existing vegetation around the periphery of that property it does so show the close relationship of that Heritage asset with with the society itself that’s the property that brings me to the end of the presentation happy to take questions at this
Stage can I just ask a significant with this referred to by many of the people who have made very good representations tonight is the highway issue as uh I to my knowledge we no highways officer present that members here tonight can ask reasonable questions I take it he was invited or she was
Invited yes the the local plany Authority did invite or send an invite out to the lead local flood Authority and the Local H Highway authority to attend the meeting this this evening to be fair to them um they haven’t had significant amount of notice and obviously we’re going into the Easter
Break and they were unable to attend unfortunately but they they’re satisfied that they’ve felt their their position out clearly in the advice that they’ve given to us and um they they wouldn’t want to add anything to that other than to provide you know further information on why they’ve arrived at the decision that
They have thank thank you Chris for that presentation uh members been now two and a half hours into the meeting um I do need to ask for a proposal to extend the meeting to allow the this matter to be concluded would someone like to propose that coun slack counc
Burton right at this stage in our proceedings uh we take uh questions from committee members to officers and as is accustom when I chair committee meetings um up to three questions each please councelor slack I think you were first thank you chair yes I sh need questions
Um one question I don’t know if you can answer it Chris but um with the climate change and we having more rainfall all the time now and uh the water table under them top Fields must be really rising and these Springs what get popping up are a result of uh water
Water being on the water table there’s more water now isn’t they in that would you agree with that or or have you got evidence yes clim climate change is something that has to be factored in when we look at sustain able Urban drainage so there’s additional capacity
Built into Drainage Systems to deal with with climate change yeah thank you uh the other questions a lot of the uh speakers have answered a lot of my questions so thank you uh councelor Le thank you chair yeah three questions uh to what extent has the um drainage investigation been
Carried out as as C drills been been put down you know to establish the St of the ground because one of the speakers did mention the different types of Sandston and moving the water from one place to another has any of that been done at all Chris is question
One and the other question I’ll do all three questions and we can mat more together that’s right uh is the attenuation ponds um who maintains those in the future and if we don’t know what depth they going to be at the moment and uh if these aren’t Fen in properly they
Look to me like they could be very dangerous playgrounds is another question and the other one is know it’s not quite coming into this the affordable housing situation um what is Affordable would it be uh rewarded into two bedroomed properties which would have the permitted development rights removed rather than
Affordable okay just dealing with thank you thank you thank you Council just dealing with the um ground conditions question first that remains a a concern um and there’s a difference of opinion between the the applicant’s drainage consultant and the the council’s drainage consultant on whether um ground conditions should be something that we
That are considered now so we know you know how big these basins need to be what their construction is um or whether that can be a condition um of any planning permission that’s granted I think given where this site sits and the you know the the volume of these these
Basin that that’s not something in office’s view that can be set aside and and looked at later on is fairly fundamental to the acceptability of this this development in office’s opinion um so we don’t feel that without knowing what the underlying ground conditions are um the other comment that I think
Count counselor slack may have mentioned the the hydrology and the complex hydrology on on site we know that matlock’s famous for its um um hydropathy um establishments and um there’s a series of Springs that are known to cross the site and um I’m pretty sure there’ll be other underground features that the developer
Would come across when when way of of dealing dealing with this matter we need to know how that’s going to impact potentially on these on these basins their size and their function um so we don’t we don’t have enough information on ground conditions and dealing with issues of of seage and
You’ll see from the late representations that um we don’t feel that the applicant drain consultant has um satisfied us um um or suitably addressed concerns raised by our own drainage consultant with regard to the exceedence of basins one and two of a range of scenarios including successive storm events that I
Mentioned earlier on and also the effects of seage and the implications on the Basin serving um development flows so that remains a concern of offices um in terms of the maintenance of these things um Wales has enacted a part of the Water Act which um creates an adopting Authority and in England that
Hasn’t been enacted yet so what we end up doing is um agreeing management companies and ultimately it’ be the management company’s responsibility maintenance of of these attenuation features and that in itself is a is a concern in terms of having a robust maintenance regime in place um throughout the lifetime of of
This of this development um I would just point out in terms of issue of safety just to clarify although the basins in area terms are large rather large and that’s shown on the plan that you can see on the presentation the maximum depth there will be no deeper than 2 m
Um so I think it’s important to just bear that in mind um but there are obviously significant bodies of of water um when when full um in terms of affordable housing I think just to clarify there’s no affordable housing being offered up so in terms of what what is Affordable nothing because it’s
All Market housing that’s proposed dos thank you chair um Chris um looking at the highways report from August 2023 you could kind of paraphrase raise their position as they’re discouraging car use by allowing congestion um would you um regard that as an unusual policy and would you regard that as an acceptable
Policy I’m not I don’t want to you know comment on areas that are outside of my area of expertise but from my understanding um the highway Authority have looked at this this application in in detail and there is a the sustainable travel plan submitted with the application and that proposes um a
Series of of measures including um concessions for public transport and respect of proposed um homeowners on the development but also to existing existing residents to try and encourage people to use bus services um and to have a bus service actually operating through the site as an incentive to
Reduce travel from the site um whether in reality people would use that service is to you know is is is something to is a matter of judgment for for members to consider but in in considering Highway matters um the highway Authority would be either have to be satisfied that the
Devel was unacceptable in highway safety terms or um the development would result in severe impacts on on the highway Network and we’re not at that level in planning policy terms to be able to sustain a reason for refusal on on such grounds right can I have a supplementary
Then in that relationship in view of the figures that they’re predicting for some of the what the two key Junctions um do you know what they would have to be in terms of Q length or overload to be severe I can’t you know confirm confirm that unfortunately councelor Shelly
Please thank you yes um just following on from councelor do there I’ve Rel lighted on exactly the same paragraph there um 5.53 in the report where it states that um this would not result in severe impact in terms of Highways assessment now I accept there isn’t a highways officer here tonight um and
Perhaps we putting you in an invidious position um but throughout this process of five years or so of discussion on this has there been any exchange with the highways officers at the county over that question about severity given the um the obvious nature of Cavendish Road particularly and the comments that have
Been very validly raised by um members of the audience here tonight yes I’ve tried to be um as comprehensive as I could be in the report in just setting out you the various different periods of consultation that been undertaken and the the responses we’ve had from the
Different consult so you’ve got a clear clear chronology of their their position position initially they had raised some concerns about certain elements of of the development and there was um a proposal or an expectation that the crossing The Pedestrian Crossing across Chesterfield Road would be moved south
Of the wals um Road Junction and that’s because a lot of children travel along chestfield Road from um lower down the hillside from the southern side of Mok and if the junction there was to be um more intensively used so that presented a potential risk so to have the crossing
Point in advance of that Junction was deemed preferable we then had comments from the highway Authority um that considered well it wasn’t in their view necessary but then that was Revisited following discussions and um with with the residents and concerns that were expressed with the comments that were
Made so they now consider that crossing point south of that Junction would be would be necessary but they’ve they’ve sort of spelled out their position and they’re happy from a higher safety perspective that the development is acceptable and also that they’re happy that or satisfied that development
Wouldn’t result in severe impacts on the highway Network I’m not sure that fully addresses the the point about I mean I understand about the crossing but in terms of the the volume of traffic and I you know there obviously talking about the later phase of development here
Particularly um I can see no reference in the report to the junction between um I think it’s Wellington Street and Cavendish Road which on our visit yesterday struck me as being particularly problematic there’s almost a gap between the the the Travel and Transport plans attention to Crown square and the very very localized
Issues around the site itself um in your experience is is is that um in atttention to the points the pinch points which um link an otherwise landlocked site to the main highways Network something which the highways Authority is often silent about I think it depends on how you look
At this with if you out outward movement from Matlock um I think the the design of the road um if if you if you’re traveling or the the um the layout of the development and the road infrastructure if you’re traveling northwards you would look to join um
Chesterfield road and travel um you know through the development site itself and not into into Matlock it’s only when you’re looking to move to travel South that you’re likely to um to make use of the existing Road Network within the town and previous speakers have mentioned that cish road wasn’t designed
Really to take you know modern vehicles and two-way traffic and the highway Authority recognized that um well members will have noted who were on the bus yesterday that Vehicles currently Park on Cavendish um Cavendish drive and and and the Kish D sorry that’s ashborn Kish Road um
And that does constrain um the width of the carriageway where you know for a large part of is currently just only really capable of accommodating single width traffic and that is a concern and the highway Authority have said that they will have to consider whether um they um whether restrictions on the road
Are imposed to try and maintain um two-way traffic in in that location to try and alleviate some of those problems but it’s an unknown there’s no set proposals there um in terms of what’s proposed is and unknown at this stage councelor butal oh yes thanks um this is one for
Chris you’ll be surprised to hear um Ken Parker from the civic association said that we should have more reasons for refusal and having heard a lot of the things that have being said by the world Action Group and my continuing interest in this over the years I thought I’d
Ask is there a particular reason why you choose not to use landscape impact as one of the reasons for refusal in Section 8 if officers felt um we could introduce more reasons for refusal we would have put those to you um we’ve we’ve covered Landscaping some detail in the in the
Officer’s reports and following um the findings of the local planning inspector when they looked at allocating this site um in in the current local plan we just do not feel that a reason um on landscape grounds would be would be defendable we feel that the reasons we’ve presented to you are robust and
Defendable um and whilst there are concerns and you know I appreciate the public have raised a number of other issues um we have looked at those but consider them to be acceptable in planning terms thank you very much any questions from Members who’ve not yet no okay now we now move into debate
Uh before we move into debate can I remind um uh members who arrived after the start of the meeting that they’re not eligible to vote uh they are eligible to take part in the debate simply not to vote um just to remind uh members that uh we
Have a revision to uh proposed reason for refusal number four um the original um recommendations are on page 147 of your report we’ve had circulated a revised reason for for refusal so please please bear that in mind um right to enter into debate I need a uh proposal please CH I’d like to
Recommendation for refusal on the basis of the officer report on uh from page eight on the agenda but as you’ve just uh intimated to members pertaining the late representations sheet Pages five to six and I’d like to reserve the right to wind up after the debate please counc
Burton Council SA on that chair thank you contributions from other members please councilor Le yeah thank you chair yeah to totally agree with the council Burton and Council of uh slack um with the recommendations set out by the Chris Whitmore um totally in support of the officer recommendation thank you any further Contributions uh you’ve already spoken Peter I’m afraid I’m afraid you already spoken okay okay any further contributions councelor Franks totally support the recommendations with the amendment um I’m as well as being very concerned about the water I’m also we bit concerned about the level of contamination in parts of the
Little Link Road coming through and somehow uh getting along Cavendish Road and the bus service runs fine but if the bus service running fine and the traffic is moving freely then presumably the cars will also follow and so you can’t have one without the other you can’t shift people onto the bus
Without having the roads free and if the roads are free people will use their cars there isn’t a solution that they propose thank you chair councelor Burton you wanted to come back then as proposer chair I’m winding up my proposal was because of the outlined planning reasons that Chris uh presented to
Us having said that uh where are you Laura Stevens are you still Laura your impassioned contribution tonight we are going to make a difference there are at least six of us sat around this table that were elected last may we were not part of that uh group of people who foolishly in
2017 Burton can I remind you we are in now pre-election perder so please avoid making any political right okay um going back to 1987 when I was on the council what was the great savior matlot people what was it going to be for us cord a quarry I
Was delighted to see the MP here tonight and I really hope we could have a constructive partnership with sarid dyes because surely it’s not without wit and and uh ability you know we’re constantly told that because of substances and things it’s totally uneconomically uh impossible to develop that Brownfield area for Matlock that’s
The sort of place that we should have hopefully been tonight encouraging development for not these Green [Applause] Fields so I I genuinely hope that as and when this props uh Services an appeal that the MP’s legal abilities will help and assist us in fighting and protecting
I I was the other week up Salter’s Lane on the path to towards Matlock and when you look at our precious landscape there’s a hell of a lot isn’t there at state that we’re going to lers so chair thank you for allowing me to speak and I so move the notice of
Motion you’ve already spoken have you already spoken Roger lot of to oh sorry Roger you spoken uh R you haven’t spoken yet I’ll allow you to speak okay fa our rules of public our rules say that members can only speak once during a debate R I’ll be brief um yeah I have
Uh flooding is one of the main issues and I’ve I worked for the environment agency for many years and uh I’ve seen major floods in M CL I’ve seen noron place where we nearly lost it at times so flooding is the big issue and this will contribute to flooding this I think
The officer got it exactly right it will contribute to flooding and if we persist with this uh going with these holding tanks will only all water so long they W continuously hold water and and water will go straight down Bloomsdale straight down Bentley Brook to nor place
Or some water go down into directly into Matlock down C and it’ll have a catastrophic um mlock eventually so we can’t really the offic have got this right we can’t go ahead with this whatever so thank you CH thank you pet sorry if I was too hard on you earlier
Right councelor Shelly thank you chair um I’d like to pay tribute to everyone here tonight really because we’ve heard a compelling case um with admittedly one person giving the opposite view um but they’re paid to do this and you folk have had to had to put up with this for
I mean it’s five and a half years but in practice if you look at it and the impact of the local plan process it’s getting on for 10 years and that that’s an unacceptable um impact of government policy of whatever shade I’m not making a particular point there although some
Others may do um the applicants say that they’re not responsible for the existing surface water whilst that’s that’s technically true it’s always been there it doesn’t mean to say that the application shouldn’t bear that in in effect and whilst there is obviously attenuation ponds I think what what
Strikes me here is that throughout the report which is a very good report and I’m concerned about criticism of officers again throughout the report we’ve been presented really with a web of confusion and uncertainty from the statutory bodies they they change their their views and it almost seems that
That might be you could say it’s under under pressure from the applicants that’s happening it’s quite right that you change your views when evidence is presented which is compelling evidence and which is scientifically proven but tonight we’re having to make a decision on the basis of Uncertain evidence but
Where the risk is Extreme we’ve heard that we’ve heard references to the risk to life and property here it’s not very often that as a planning committee we get those kind of um threats put over us and and for that reason alone I think it
Would be a dereliction of our duty to to our communities that you know the existing communities as well as future ones if we didn’t bear the seriousness of that in mind and and for though so for that reason I know I know which way I will be voting
Um I just like to say really that you know the the effort that the applicant has put into this probably means that this is not unfortunately the last time we will see this come before us it might be in different shape or form I would just appeal to developers like William
Davis to work more closely with the council one of the um speakers tonight referred very um clearly to Brownfield sites which are available for development and we know what those are we only have to think about things like mass and Mill for example um those are the opportunity which I’m sure the
Council would like to work with developers in the future to deliver those are the kind of places that we should be looking at thank you right I’m now going to move to the vote now are all members clear on the recommendations before us okay can I show all those in favor of
The recommendations to refuse please show my colleages can any abstentions anyone against uh councilor Walker is not able to vote because he arrived after the start of the meeting so that is therefore unanimous and the application is refused just before we just before we all make
Our way home can I can I please thank uh everyone that’s both the applicant and those uh who didn’t support the application for the constructive approach to this evening meeting I think that’s been very helpful to us all now members of the planning committee um Chris Whitmore development manager
Presented the uh application to us this evening and this is in fact his last day at work uh with darish d District Council after 15 years of working with us and providing uh expert uh advice to uh successive planning committees he’s moving on to uh past’s new uh past just
Not necessarily the right word because he’s moving to Bova um so on I’m sure members would uh join with me in in Wishing Chris the very best for his future [Applause] career thank you Chris all have a safe journey home that’s