Children's home bid for former doctor's surgery in north Derbyshire village is refused after numerous objections

Dr Catherine Kemp submitted an application for the change of use of a former medical centre at 82 St Philips Drive, Hasland which included ground and first floor extensions.

Among the objectors was Brenda Foncree who wrote: "My elderly parents live directly behind the property and would be impacted by the overshadowing of this building. The privacy they currently have would be gone and the noise level from that location would significantly increase. They have recently invested a lot of money into their retirement property which provides the tranquility and peace they need. They both would be subjected to significant stress with the conversion of the current building and everything it would bring with it.”

Terence Solman commented: “To put this home in the middle of many retired people is offensive and will likely blight our properties should we try to sell, On top of that St Philips Drive is already used as a rat run with people going to and from Chesterfield, persons attending the home would cause additional traffic congestion leading to a safety fear for those of us who are elderly and live close.”

Gillian and Brian Bingham, who live on St Philips Drive, said: ”Parking would be virtually non existent for such a large building on the limited space available so would cause blockages on the surrounding roads for who have lived in the area some up to 40years +, ourselves being here for 38years. With this consideration comes the logical situation that many of the residents are in their later years and as such any traffic and parking problems could cause significant safety issues with the road already being used as a through road to Storforth Lane.”

The council refused permission for change of use of the medical centre, which closed in May 2023, for several reasons. The scheme would be an over-dominant form of development overlooking 4 Swanbourne Close, the proposed hipped roof design of the first floor extension was not in keeping with the character of the area and that the number of parking spaces proposed was inadequate to serve the needs of the proposed development.