Dronfield homes: Council planners reject housing scheme over Green Belt and drainage fears

North East Derbyshire council’s planning committee has refused the planning application for 132 homes with highways, landscaping and works for W. Redmile and Sons Ltd at land near Burns Drive, Southfield Drive and Chesterfield Road.

Council planning officer Kerry Hallam stated: “The concerns raised relate to impact on green field land and loss of agricultural land, road safety issues, risk of surface water flooding, loss of ecological value and impact on social infrastructure.”

The scheme’s site, which is near homes on Burns Drive and Southfield Mount, included plans for a mix of between one and six bedroom homes, with 30 per cent classed as affordable housing, and a proposed underground drainage tank on Green Belt land with ‘biodiversity enhancement’.

Dronfield Civic Society pointed out the neighbourhood has been subject to many complaints about an odour from the waste-water treatment works and despite a recommended distance of 400 metres for any potential new homes the proposed site would fall inside that area.

Councillor William Jones, who oversees Dronfield South, said the scheme has attracted a ‘groundswell of concern’ and it involves a naive design without the right mix of properties and there are worries about the existing water works and the planned sewage system.

He added: “We urge the committee to support the recommendation and refuse the current application.”

Dronfield Town councillor, Alex Dale, stressed North East Derbyshire deserves the best, attractive development in keeping with the area but claimed that this scheme is an ‘ugly, ill-thought-through development’.

Coun Dale highlighted previous flooding at nearby Unstone and that Dronfield residents have suffered with odours from the water treatment works and that the developers only carried out a simple sniff-test and they have not fully considered drainage solutions.

He said: “These issues can have catastrophic impacts on the real life experiences of local people.”

One resident said the scheme fails to contribute to the water infrastructure and only considers the privacy of potential new residents and it needs to be a better design.

Another objector said the developer has failed to address significant challenges and he described the scheme as ‘cheap, amateurish and woefully inadequate’.

He also argued the site is a greenfield and a hay meadow area and not the recommended potential ‘grey belt’ outlined by the Government for housing.

The same objector described the plan as ‘unacceptable’ and an ‘outrage’ as he claimed the scheme does not include a proper drainage system and housing would be within 400 metres of a sewage system.

Resident Shelley Hemsley also raised concerns about increased traffic and road safety, as well as potential water run-off problems, and that the site includes animals and wildflowers.

She said: “I understand the need for local housing but it should be well designed and meet people’s needs and meet statutory requirements.”

Agent Michael Edgar, representing the developers, argued the site falls in the council’s Local Plan and the scheme is an appropriate one for the area with mixed housing and it meets the biodiversity net gain targets and offers substantial financial support for the area’s infrastructure.

In addition, Yorkshire Water, Derbyshire County Council’s highways and flood teams raised no objections despite initial concerns from the county council’s flood team.

However, the council received 66 letters of objection with concerns about the potential strain on GPs, the environmental impact, traffic safety and congestion, odours from the the waste-water treatment works and the loss of a gap between Dronfield and Unstone.

The committee voted against the planning application and refused permission for the scheme after considering council officers’ recommendations.

These included the scheme’s design on a hill near to the gateway of Dronfield, the loss of Green Belt to a drainage tank without sufficient improvements, and the site’s unacceptable ‘relationship’ with existing properties.

Council planning officer Kerry Hallam stated: “By virtue of the overall design, in particular the layout, street design, car parking arrangements, drainage and landscape strategies and connections with the wider area, the proposal fails to achieve good design, that is appropriate in scale, design and location to the character and function of the settlement.”

Ms Hallam also added that officers feel the drainage strategy is insufficient and that the developers have not demonstrated that the proposed scheme would adequately manage surface water drainage discharges.