High Peak planners to reconsider housing scheme’s affordable homes and traffic pollution worries

The council’s Development Committee met at Buxton Methodist Church, on Chapel Street, in Buxton, on Monday, June 16, to consider Barratt Homes’ planning application for 99 properties on a 4.2 hectare site including greenfield land at Hogshaw, at Fairfield, Buxton, with access from a new A6 roundabout.

Many residents have already objected to the plans and have raised concerns based on the loss of greenfield land, the impact on wildlife, school capacity and medical services, with further worries about flooding and drainage, poor public transport arrangements, an increase in traffic and pollution, and the provision of only 12 affordable properties.

But Barratt Homes has argued the council has a deficit housing supply which the applicant can help to meet on land already allocated for development by the council, and the developer also claims the viability of the scheme means it can only provide a limited amount of affordable housing to make the project reasonably profitable.

Cllr Charlotte Farrell told the meeting: “I have got lots of concerns about this, not least the viability assessment. When Barratt’s bought the land they must have realised considerable work needed to go into it so they must have known that providing affordable housing was negligible. It is fine to say it’s 12 homes but we need the maximum.

“I feel we are being blackmailed because of a deficit housing supply and that is not right.”

The proposed scheme includes plans for 11 two-bedroom homes, 48 three-bedroom homes, 40 four-bedroom homes with 12 of the properties to be delivered as affordable housing.

High Peak Borough Council’s planning officers recommended the Development Committee approves the application and grants planning permission subject to ‘Nutrient Neutrality and Air Quality mitigation measures’, financial contributions towards infrastructure, and the inclusion of 12 affordable homes.

But Cllr Simon Evans raised concerns about the issue of Barratt facing ‘abnormal costs’ with the scheme and why the council should bear the consequences of those costs by compromising on affordable housing with only 12 such properties to be provided.

He said that Barratt is not a poor company ‘in penury’ or a ‘local developer going broke’ and he questioned what the council’s role is in allowing ‘fair profit’ to a developer on a national scale.

Cllr Evans added that he would like to know what the definition of ‘fair profit’ is for the development because he feels the council should be developing housing that work for residents and not for the developer.

A council officer reminded the Development Committee the council has allocated this site already for development so the ‘abnormal costs’ faced by the developer are something the council needs to consider and this means there has to be an off-set somewhere within the scheme or a reduction in what the authority can expect.

Council Senior Planning Officer Rachael Simpkin also said the scheme has been looked at thoroughly in terms of its ‘viability’ and even though it is disappointing that the authority has had to make reductions in what it can expect the developer still has to make a ‘fair level of profit’.

Cllr Gillian Scott also raised concerns that there are no proposals to extend public transport to deal with the influx of new residents and that the developers have not taken into account ‘inclusive mobility’ for potential residents because of the site’s steep gradient.

Ms Simpkin said that the council’s Environmental Health team believes the effects of the development on the site are not so significant that they cannot be mitigated and that the developer will still have to follow building regulations outside of the scope of planning regulations and Derbyshire County Council’s flood authority believes that plans for a drainage culvert are fit-for-purpose.

She added: “It’s a scheme that will deliver 99 homes in the context of what we would say is a chronic housing shortfall.”

A Barratt Homes spokesperson told the meeting the scheme will bring forward a site already allocated for development by the council with access from the A6 and it will help to meet the council’s needed housing supply and any impact on wildlife will be minimised.

He added that with the use of additional land it can ensure that 12per cent of the scheme will include affordable housing, and there will also be a drainage scheme with a reduced run-off, and the scheme will also provide a 10per cent biodiversity net gain for the area.

In addition, Derbyshire County Council’s highways authority has stated that there would not be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or a severe impact on congestion and that there are no justifiable highways grounds on which an objection could be maintained, and its flood authority also raised no objections as long as certain conditions are met.

Derbyshire Wildlife Trust also stated the proposals for habitat creation and enhancements are considered to provide an acceptable level of mitigation and compensation for the impact on the local wildlife site.

Peak District National Park Authority has also raised no objections to the scheme but the council’s Conservation Officer stated that the scheme would pose a degree of harm to the setting and significance of the adjacent designated and non-designated heritage assets.

Cllr Adrian Hopkinson called for the application to be deferred for further consideration after he raised concerns about the scheme’s lack of affordable housing and Cllr Paul Hardy also called for the matter to be deferred after raising concerns about an extra 150 expected cars with the scheme possibly increasing traffic emissions and air pollution.

The Development Committee voted in favour of a referral to allow further time to consider the scheme’s percentage of affordable housing and increased traffic emissions with a final decision on the planning application to be expected at a future date.