Further campaigner complains to Chesterfield council over planning process after housing scheme is set to go-ahead

Protestor Keith Oxby, of Long Duckmanton, originally wrote to Chesterfield Borough Council with concerns that there had been a suggestion that pressure had been applied to approve the housing scheme between Duckmanton and Long Duckmanton and this had seemed to represent “bullying”.

But despite the council stating the application had not been handled “inappropriately” and that any such “bullying” reference was believed to have been frustration with the constraints of the decision-making process, a further campaigner, Lisa Bosson, of Duckmanton, has now written to the council raising the same issues.

Ms Bosson stated in her letter: “My concern and question to Chesterfield Borough Council which I am therefore raising as a complaint – If this is an open and honest and legitimate process, why are councillors expressing they are feeling bullied into making decisions to favour planning applications?

“Certain councillors clearly feel strongly about this to use the word ‘bullying’ in the open forum of the planning committee with members of the public and local press in attendance.”

Ms Bosson claims in her letter that Cllr Jacqueline Ridgway was concerned about the repercussions of voting against the proposal, and allegedly the word “bullying” was referenced, and Cllr Maureen Davenport had said she had seen in the past what happens when committees turn something down, and Cllr Kate Caulfield said the planning committee should not be made to agree with something because something has happened in the past.

Both Ms Bosson and Mr Oxby have also claimed to the council that in a previous heated planning meeting for a separate housing development in Dunston, on July 24, the word ‘bullying’ was used by one of the councillors on the planning committee who was concerned about the decision-making process.

Cllr Davenport had also raised concerns about possible alleged repercussions in the decision-making process and had also referenced the word “bullying”during this previous planning committee meeting, according to Ms Bosson, which had been dealing with the approved application for 500 dwellings at Dunston.

Ms Bosson further stated in her letter: “This open reference to bullying therefore calls into question the validity and reliability of the decision-making [process] witnessed at both the July and August planning committee meetings.”

She also complained in her letter that important issues in the Duckmanton planning application were not fully addressed before a decision was made to approve the scheme.

These include: Yorkshire Water stating that the sewage network does not have capacity to deal with the development; Dangerous flooding issues on Tom Lane; And Derbyshire County Council Highways authority’s lack of objections was not questioned by Chesterfield Borough Council despite councillors and residents’ evidence and concerns about the narrow route, flooding risks and potential dangers along Tom Lane.

Campaigners and residents’ overall objections to the Duckmanton 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.

The Duckmanton development plans feature three access points from Tom Lane on a site that slopes away from Rectory Road, and the plans also include a commercial zone and a community area.

Dunston residents and Dunston Grange Action Group had similarly objected to the planning application for 500 dwellings on 34 hectares of agricultural fields on the basis of over-development, congestion and traffic safety concerns, feared flooding, the strain on health services and schools, as well as the loss of greenfield land and wildlife.

Other campaigners concerned about large residential planning applications across Derbyshire have also raised similar concerns about the potential strain on infrastructure, services and facilities which was recently echoed by Opposition Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer.

Sir Keir Starmer stated he would not allow housing developments without providing infrastructure such as GPs and schools.

Ms Bosson also brought into question in her letter the council’s reliance on expert consultee reports while the committee seemed to ignore evidence submitted by the public.

Copies of Ms Bosson’s letter have been sent to Chesterfield Borough Council Leader Tricia Gilby, the council’s Head of Regulatory Law and Monitoring Gerard Rogers, and the council Chief Executive Huw Bowen.

Mr Rogers previously stated to Mr Oxby, regarding the Duckmanton scheme, that any “bullying” reference was believed to have been frustration with the constraints of the decision-making process, and that this planning application is not considered to have been handled “inappropriately”.

He added that with regard to the Dunston application it is understood the use of the word ‘bullying’ by a councillor was used in connection with a decision made by the committee several years ago and that decision was made in light of all material planning considerations before the committee.

He added the response to complaints about the consideration of the Dunston application, which involves 500 dwellings to be built from Dunston Road and Dunston Lane, between Sheepbridge and Cutthorpe, is still being reviewed under Stage 2 of the council’s complaints procedure.

The council has offered an opportunity to Mr Oxby for his concerns to be further reviewed by a senior officer 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.

A council spokesperson said: ““All complaints submitted to the council are managed according to the processes set out within its complaints procedure.

“If a local resident is not satisfied with how their complaint is handled and responded to on such matters, ultimately they are able to escalate this to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.”