Chesterfield council feels housing planning application was not handled “inappropriately” after “bullying” claim

The council’s planning committee voted by a majority at a meeting back on August 21 to approve the planning application for 275 homes between Duckmanton and Long Duckmanton on 16.6 hectares of agricultural fields near Tom Lane and Rectory Road along with new commercial and community areas despite objections from campaigners.

Some councillors expressed sympathies with campaigners but the committee granted planning permission but not before two councillors appeared to have raised concerns about whether any decision might result in repercussions which led to campaigner Keith Oxby writing to the council with concerns about alleged bullying in the planning process.

Mr Oxby, of Long Duckmanton, claimed in a letter to the local authority that a councillor asked the chairman of the committee meeting what the repercussions would be for voting against the application and that they also allegedly stated the pressure on councillors seemed to represent “bullying”.

Monitoring Officer and the council’s Head of Regulatory Law, Gerard Rogers, replied in a letter dated September 29: “It is alleged that one councillor referred to bullying during the meeting. While any councillor is entitled to their own opinion and to choose their own words, it is not considered that use of this word was appropriate.

“It is believed it may have been an expression of frustration that the committee was constrained in deciding the application, given statutory consultees’ responses and as this was an application to consider the principle of housing development on a site already allocated for housing development under the Local Plan, a matter which the planning officer reminded the meeting about.”

During the meeting, two planning committee members appeared to raise concerns about possible repurcussions but the committee chairman, Cllr Ian Callan, sought to reassure councillors about any such concerns.

Campaigners and residents’ overall objections to the scheme include over-development, the loss of greenfield land, the potential harm to wildlife, sewage capacity, and flooding on Tom Lane and Rectory Road, traffic safety and congestion along Tom Lane, as well as an increased strain on public services.

Mr Oxby claimed to the council in his formal complaint that in a previous heated planning meeting for a separate development in Dunston, on July 24, the word ‘bullying’ was again used by one of the councillors on the planning committee who was concerned about the decision-making process.

Mr Rogers stated: “With regard to the Dunston application it is understood the use of that word by a councillor was used in connection with a decision made by the committee several years ago.

“However, the decision on that previous application was made in the light of all material planning considerations before the Planning Committee at the time.

“The response to complaints about the consideration of the Dunston application is currently being reviewed under Stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure and it would be inappropriate to comment on that matter further at this stage.”

Mr Oxby also raised concerns regarding the Duckmanton planning committee meeting about the limited time allowed for campaigners’ representations, the consideraton of issues surrounding highways, flooding, education, health, and infrastructure as well as the council’s final decision to approve the planning application.

Mr Gerard stated that the site had already been allocated for development in the council’s Local Plan and the number of representations does not determine the outcome for a planning application which has to be decided upon justifiable planning reasons.

He added the planning officer had already robustly set out why the application should be approved and the planning committee needed to take that report into account with a site visit, any officer presentation and any material planning considerations in representations or information from both the applicant and the objectors.

Mr Gerard also stated that usually only a maximum of two speakers are permitted with each allowed three minutes, but an exception was agreed to allow three speakers with two minutes each.

Derbyshire County Council also confirmed there were no highway objections to the development, subject to certain requirements, according to Mr Gerard, and that the lead local flood authority advised the drainage system for the development should assist in resolving the issue of flooding.

Mr Gerard stated that the impact of the development on school places would be for the later, reserved matters stage of the application, when any shortfall in school infrastructure provision would be considered.

A report also referred to the Clinical Commissioning Group’s request for a contribution of £247,500 towards healthcare at specified GP practices, and, according to Mr Gerard, the planning committee is entitled to rely on responses from statutory consultees on such issues.

Mr Gerard stated it was also not inappropriate for the Chairperson to have seconded the proposal at the committee meeting for the voting to proceed.

He explained that a majority decision can be accepted, and although concerns of those opposed to the development were not disregarded, it was explained that while there was sympathy, the land was allocated for housing and statutory consultees were not objecting to the proposal.

Mr Gerard stated: “It is not considered that this application was handled inappropriately. The committee gave the application careful consideration.

“Councillors must decide applications only on the basis of material planning considerations.”

The council has offered an opportunity to Mr Oxby for his concerns to be further reviewed by a senior officer if he wishes, and if Mr Oxby is still not satisfied he can complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman although the Ombudsman is not able to reverse a planning decision.

Mr Oxby said: “From what I can discern, the planning application was accepted because it fulfilled the material requirements of the planning committee, while it skated around the concerns local residents raised, regarding schools and health care.”

He added: “It may be that while the council is duty bound to follow rules governing planning applications, maybe those rules need reviewing.

“They apparently don’t take into account local infrastructure when passing a planning application that will increase the strain on already overstretched services like health and education.

“My reference to flooding, and [the] UK government’s recognition that development increases the risk was totally ignored.

“When the subject of ‘bullying’ was mentioned, the report appears to have softened the word, and offered a ‘nicer’ interpretation of it.”

Mr Oxby said he needed to consider the situation and perhaps consult with other concerned residents before deciding on any further action.