Planning battle to launch after major housing development approved on former Dinnington Miners’ Welfare ground

A major housing development has been approved in Dinnington – despite opposition from residents.
Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now

The decision is already facing a battle as it has been called in to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government – who has the power to take over the determination of the application, and may overturn the decision.

There will be a public inquiry chaired by a planning inspector, or lawyer, who will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Permission cannot yet be granted, but Rotherham Council’s planning board approved Barratt Homes’ application to build 152 homes on land south of Lodge Lane, Dinnington, and proposals include 30 affordable housing units on site.

Permission cannot yet be granted, but Rotherham Council's planning board approved Barratt Homes' application to build 152 homes on land south of Lodge Lane, Dinnington, and proposals include 30 affordable housing units on site.Permission cannot yet be granted, but Rotherham Council's planning board approved Barratt Homes' application to build 152 homes on land south of Lodge Lane, Dinnington, and proposals include 30 affordable housing units on site.
Permission cannot yet be granted, but Rotherham Council's planning board approved Barratt Homes' application to build 152 homes on land south of Lodge Lane, Dinnington, and proposals include 30 affordable housing units on site.

Planning documents from the applicant state that the site is “unmanaged grassland with a disused multi-use hardcourt”, and was formerly used as a recreation ground for Dinington Miners’ Welfare.

A report by planning officers states that the site was previously used as a sports ground but has not been used for approximately 10 years, and the previous buildings have been demolished.

The proposal includes a play area, open spaces, and a landscape buffer, and access is to be taken from Lodge Lane.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

More than £1m has been proposed in S106 money from the developer, to fund education for youngsters with special educational needs and disabilities; sports facility improvements at Dinnington High School and/or Dinnington Rugby Club; and sustainable travel.

Councillor Sophie Castledine-Dack called for developers to honour the heritage of the site, and said it was a “bittersweet moment” for Dinnington.

“Like all miners’ welfares it was paid for by hardworking families in the belief it could be enjoyed for generations to come.

“The community feels a sense of loss in respect to the recreation ground, but the land has now been purchased by Barratts, and whilst I understand the unhappiness of a number of former miners and their families, what is important today is ensuring that the redevelopment fund honours the heritage of the site.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

A letter was also read out from MP Alexander Stafford, who wrote: “I appreciate that there is a lot of emotion among the community in Dinnington as the application to build new homes on the former Dinnington Miners’ Welfare Ground comes before planning board, given the long and fraught history associated with the sale, and ownership, this is understandable.

“However, I believe that the whole community is united in wanting to regenerate Dinnington.

“Whilst we cannot change what has happened in regards to the ownership of the land, we are now presented with an opportunity to shape what happens to the land now and to ensure that this provides a positive legacy for the generations of miners who have contributed to its upkeep over many years.”

More than 30 letters of representation have been received from individual addresses including one from the Dinnington Town Council, Yorkshire Wildlife Trust and MP Alexander Stafford.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

One objector stated: “It is wrong that this piece of land, paid for by the miners, should be lost for future generations.”

“It is wrong that CISWO and RMBC allowed this site to be run down andbecome derelict,” added another.

Other reasons given for objections include traffic congestion and lack of school, dentist and GP places.

“The loss of recreation ground is a significant concern, it has stronglinks to generations of former miners in the area,” one objector stated.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“It is not sufficient to just require the developer to spend moneyupgrading existing facilities, the pitches need to be replaced.”

However, an officer report states that the site is ‘accessible to services and facilities, and has public transport nearby and the scheme will create investment in the local economy and provide housing which will assist with relieving those suffering poor access to quality housing opportunities and creating a balanced community.’

It adds: “The development will also provide suitable onsite drainage infrastructure which will ensure that there is no greater risk of flooding on this site or the surrounding areas.

“The formal use of the land for sports provision has lapsed over five years ago, when the previous landowner CISWO closed the site to formal sports provision and left the site to become overgrown and unkempt.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“It is therefore concluded that the site has not been used as a playing pitch for the last five years, this is acknowledged by Sport England in their pre-appresponse and responses to this application; and as such it is considered that the site’s use as open space has been abandoned.

“The scheme put forward will provide much needed new housing on an allocated housing site close to local facilities and in a sustainable location that would not result in significant impact on the local highway network, air quality or the environment.

"In fact, it is considered that the scheme put forward with the landscaping, EV charging points and public open space willhelp in providing a enhancement in terms of biodiversity and sustainable transport methods.”

A transport assessment found that the impact of traffic generated by the development would be “negligible”, adding that the scheme would generate 80 and 77 two-way vehicle trips during the morning and evening peak hours respectively.

The plans were passed with one vote against.