Council set to refuse controversial plans for more than 400 homes on Derbyshire hillside - due to the “threat to life” from potential flooding

The plans, from William Davis Homes, intend to build 423 homes on land to the north of Matlock, close to Highfields School, off Pinewood Road, Gritstone Road and Sandy Lane – known locally as the Wolds.

These plans were submitted to Derbyshire Dales District Council five and a half years ago and now the authority’s planners are recommending that the scheme is rejected.

Councillors will make the final decision on the project at a meeting on Thursday, March 28 at County Hall in Matlock, with the larger venue selected due to the sheer weight of opposition demonstrated against the scheme.

Residents have opposed the plans in significant numbers since the scheme was submitted, fearing the potential flooding implications of the scheme, above a town which now experiences record-breaking devastating flooding on an annual basis.

A district council planning report on the application, running to 138 pages, recommends four reasons for refusal.

These are:

• The lack of sufficient detail on how the scheme can be built without resulting in flood risks on the site, elsewhere or “presenting unacceptable risk to public safety”
• Lack of information that the scheme would not result in an “unacceptable” loss of biodiversity, “without any understanding” of the final designs for methods of collecting and dispersing water safely
• Insufficient information that the surface water attenuation methods would not result in harm to the character and appearance of Matlock
• Lack of affordable housing on a site which has been proven to be viable to provide higher quantities of affordable housing – or funds for these to be built elsewhere

A total of 462 objection letters have been submitted to the district council against the application, including opposition from Matlock Town Council, Darley Dale Town Council, the Derbyshire Dales Group of Ramblers and Derbyshire Wildlife Trust.

Matlock Town Council indicated that residents had to assist county council flood experts at the council and Severn Trent on the current drainage issues on the site and around their homes and that their evidence should be taken as a priority over and above those organisations as a result.

More than 2,500 people signed a petition started last June by the Wolds Action Group opposing the scheme.

Concerns raised by objectors include concerns about drainage and flooding, impact on roads and infrastructure and the capacity of local schools, along with the need to protect accessible green space for the benefit of current and future generations.

On hearing the recommended refusal of the plans, Julie Atkin, spokesperson for the campaign group, said: “We are really pleased. It has been nearly five and a half years that it has been a live application.

“We are extremely relieved that the planning officers have recommended it for refusal.

“People have been really, really anxious. It has caused a lot of problems for people living down-catchment of the homes.

“It has caused a big strain for people for five and a half years.

“We need houses but this is clearly the wrong place to try and build them – and it is huge. It is the size of Ashover – it is massive.

“It is not just about the people living in the houses near it either, it would affect hundreds of people. The paths there saved people’s sanity during Covid. That peace and tranquillity would be lost.

“I am relieved we don’t have to carry on worrying. Now we just have to leave it for the committee next week.”

The 423-home scheme includes plans for 62 affordable homes, with eight to be built in phase one and 51 to follow in further phases – 14.66 per cent.

William Davis Homes says if 30 per cent of homes were classed as affordable housing – in line with council policy – it would make a loss of £4.6 million on the project.

They claim there are “abnormal costs” amounting to £20.1 million but did not provide any evidence to support these claims to the district council.

The council hired an independent surveyor who found the “abnormal costs” were just under £16 million, dubbing the £20.1 million figure “over-inflated”.

That expert found the developer could include 14.66 per cent affordable housing on the site along with paying £4.5 million for improvements to schools, healthcare and other infrastructure.

However, since discussing those figures, legislation for developer contributions changed and the amount now required for schools etc rose to £7.4 million.

This meant the developer would only be able to afford to build five per cent affordable housing and the council would be faced with a trade-off of choosing cut-price housing over improvements to schools and infrastructure.

Planning officials, recommending refusal, detail: “Whilst it is recognised that the delivery of housing is a significant benefit of the development, there are a number of shortcomings in the application proposals that do not deliver sustainable development that will improve the economic, environmental and social conditions of the area.

“Significant concern has been raised by the council’s drainage consultants regarding the suitability of the land drainage proposals.

“The application has been presented in a manner and lacks sufficient detail in order for the local planning authority to be satisfied that the development can be delivered without resulting in flood risk on site, elsewhere or presenting unacceptable risk to public safety.”

They mention: “The volume of water that would need to be stored on high ground and upslope of the town is a significant concern.”

The 423-home scheme would include a restaurant or cafe, business and shop units, a takeaway, a children’s play area and a “countryside park”, along with floodwater collection ponds.

Last October the Local Democracy Reporting Service detailed a letter from a chartered civil engineer hired by Derbyshire County Council who had assessed the Wolds application.

They found that flood water collection ponds planned on the site would need to be so large that they could “pose a threat to life” to the downstream population.

District council planners concluded: “Without a robust drainage strategy and consideration of the matters raised by the independent drainage consultant appointed by the council there can be no certainty that the development can be delivered in a manner that will not result in unacceptable flood risk and that the amount of surface water can be stored safely.

“This is fundamental to the acceptability of the development proposals in terms of the amount and nature of development applied for.”