Transcript

Land between Sandie Lane, Benton Lane and Gritstone Road in Matnock and we'll come on to the details of the application in due course. Just for information, it's a special meeting, purely because it's an additional one to our normal calendar of meetings. In all other respects, it's exactly the same as our other planning committee meetings. Before we start the meeting itself, some introductions. My name's Councillor Peter O'Brien and I represent the Hallensage area on the council and I'm chairing the meeting this evening. Chris Whitmore on my right here is our Development Manager. He will be presenting the application together with recommendations. We also have with us Helen Mitchell, who is our Director of Corporate and Customer Services. Kerry, who is our legal Services Manager and our Democratic Services Officer. And we're pleased to welcome Sean Robson, who's observing the meeting this evening. He's recently been appointed as our new interim Development Manager. Just a few housekeeping points to make. No fire alarm planned this evening, so if it does go off, please make your way out through the emergency exits, which are one on my left here, I want the doors which you came into. Toilets are through the door on my left here, out into the corridor, and there's also a disabled toilet facility, which is out through the main doors at the back and turn left. The meeting will broadcast live via our YouTube facility. So if you don't want to appear in person when you're speaking, please let me know and we can turn off the camera. As it may be a long meeting, there will be a comfort break during the proceedings. Finally, when we are speaking, members of the Public All Committee members, can we please make sure we share respect to each other? And can we also please ensure your mobile phones are turned off or too silent? Right, first item on the agenda this evening is apologies for absence.

• Thank you, Chair.
• Councillor.
• Superfort substitute, Councillor Frank's, Councillor David Hughes, substitute Councillor Shelley, and apologies from Councillor Robert Archer, Councillor Dermot Murphy, and Councillor Whitehead and Edward Walker, not arrived as yet.
• Thank you, Ellen Chair. Item two is declaration of interests. Do any members have any to declare? No, that's good. Now, we now move on to the public participation part of the meeting. This is where Planning Committee members have the opportunity to hear representation for or against the application. There's a lot of you who had registered to speak this evening, and thank you for coordinating your approach to this. We normally only allow one hour up to one hour for a public participation, but because of the interest in this application, I'm extended this period to fit everybody in. But this will mean that I will ask you, please, astrictly keep the time allowed for each presentation. So I'm now going to ask our first speaker to come up to the microphone. That's Councillor Jason Farmer. She's going to be speaking on behalf of Darling Dale Town Council, and Jason, you have three minutes. There's a switch on now. Thank you.
• Good evening. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. My name is Jason Farmer from Darling Dale Town Council. Darling Dale Town Council appreciates that this development is not within the parish boundary. Our parish boundary, I should say. However, it is very close to our parish boundary, and we welcome the invitation to comment on this application. The fundamental issue of surface runoff drainage and sewage management has not been fully addressed by the developer nor seven Trent. A major reason for the proposal being previously rejected. The development to this size would have a serious knock-on effect to Darling Dale and the infrastructure within Matlock. And Darling Dale, as I speak, from great knowledge is already under extreme pressure. An additional level of homes that this application is proposing is likely to see an increase of approximately 700 vehicles, not including service and delivery vehicles, already using the congested chest feel road in and out of Matlock and the A6, which already suffers from major queuing at peak times. We need to protect the fields on this site as it would also potentially risk the development spreading into our own parish, which is the parish of Farley. This is within the Darling Dale boundary. Darling Dale Town Council feel that these fields should never actually have been included in the neighbourhood plan and should be potentially removed as soon as possible. In order to meet this high number of houses, it can only come of the expense of the environment. If this development was to be rejected, where would it go? Darling Dale already has a number of major developments in process with more planned. Currently, all developments within Darling Dale are taking place outside the Peat and District National Park, even though 58% of the area of Derb-Stales falls within the Park boundary. Alternative development sites should be sought within peak National Park boundaries rather than this particular site. Thank you very much.
• Thank you, Councillor. (audience applauding)
• You, Councillor Palmer, our next speaker is Town Councillor Matlow. Town Councillor David Hughes. David, you have three minutes, please.
• Thank you, Peter. I'm speaking as leader of Matlow Town Council. The council welcomes the recommendation made by Derb-Stales Officer for refusal. I would like to comment on the first and fourth recommendations. The first recommendation points to the flood risk and the risk to public safety. The developer has, over five years, failed to provide a robust drainage plan and has failed to satisfy not one, but two qualified consultants, one employed by the LLFA and one by Derb-Stales. The LLFA consultant stated based on consequence and volume of water potential energy and downstream population, we would expect these ponds to pose a threat to life. The consultant asked for more evidence and agreed to conditions only when. The LLFA suggested that this application was concerned, not with access alone and not with drainage. Mr. Dale's consultant said, proposals for raising attenuation basin requires further assessment by the applicant if the issues are to be fully addressed. The LPA needs comfort at outline planning that the proposed ponds will operate safely for the lifetime of the development. This is not the case based on the level of detail provided and as such, further assessment is not considered to be suitable for planning condition. The developer has asked for more time to meet the concerns raised by the two qualified consultants. He has had five and a half years. How much time does he require to produce a design that works that is viable? How much longer should local people bordering the site put their life on hold? The fourth recommendation points to the amount of affordable housing and the lack of a mechanism for ensuring that this will be delivered. Greenfield sites should be relatively cheap to build on and should represent an opportunity for affordable housing. This one apparently does not. But on this site, there is a major risk to the viability of the development and hence to the ability of the development to provide the required amount of affordable housing. The first arises from the unknown costs associated with the revised drainage scheme, one that does not pose a risk to life and property. The second arises from the way in which the developer has designed the first phase. It does not take account of the undulations in the site. It is a two-dimensional design on a three-dimensional landscape. To accommodate this, it is likely that the developer will need to undertake expensive earthworks. These will eat into the landscape and also into the viability of the scheme, leaving less for later affordable housing. There are other points that I would like to make concerning the sustainability of the site at the top of a steep hill and the developer's proposed transport plan, which will reduce car usage. I urge the committee to accept the recommendations of the planning officers and refuse this application. Thank you. (audience applauds)
• Thank you, Councillor Hughes. Next speaker, Julie Atkin, on behalf of Woll's community.
• Good to see you, everyone. I've been a member of the Woll's Action Group since it was formed. WAG fully supports the planning officer in his recommendation to refuse this application, and I urge the committee members to support him. Five years and four months is an extremely long time for people to have this hanging over them. And the anxiety and the stress it has caused must not be underestimated. We take exception to the following. Loss of a locally valued and beautiful landscape, including the amenity of two-foot paths, bent lane and sandy lane, which support the well-being of hundreds of people. Loss of biodiversity and loss of habitats for the protected species which rely on the Woll's. Loss of rare and irreplaceable habitats, including ancient hedgerows and wetlands. The scale and position of the surface water attenuation, which has turned out to be a series of dams. Lack of affordable houses for local people. The developers' inability to pay the required amount of contributions towards essential supporting infrastructure because it erodes their profit margins, leaving the taxpayers of the Dabish Dales to foot the bill. Unacceptable stress on essential services, including local and town centre roads and impacts on highway safety, especially affecting vulnerable groups, including school children. Over the years, WAG has worked to present clear, credible evidence to show that this is the wrong place to build. We all know we need new homes, but they need to be built in the right places. After nearly five and a half years, the site is no further forward. The Woll's is clearly the wrong place, so please support our planning officer. Thank you, Julia. Our next speaker is John Ewart. To speak on behalf of Woll's community, John. You've now three minutes. Thank you. Thank you, Chair and members, for this opportunity. I know MRTPI retired. I joined WAG during the preparation of the outgoing local plan. I am delighted that Chris Whitmore has written a comprehensive report and is recommending refusal. I support that recommendation and look forward to working in cooperation with the Council at last. A significant proportion of the hundreds of documents on the portal are WAG's work, or commissioned by WAG. Housing. Housing is a specialism of mine. Over many years, for the Peak Park and others, and in consultation with the Dale's Housing Authority. At the local planning query, the officer said that the allocation of Woll's was an insurance policy. The local plan group's recommendation to remove it from the plan was overruled by the then full Council. The officer and inspector declined to commission a search for a garden village, despite possible sites and a national policy in favour. A garden village could provide up to 5,000 houses. The officer at the time consistently declined to accept what has become known as the National Park Effect, despite having been agreed elsewhere in local plans. This reflects the fact that more than half of the Council housing area is in the National Park planning area where development is strictly limited to a few hundred special needs, how does only. Elsewhere, this genuine constraint has been successful in justifying substantially lower targets. Later, the Council failed to agree a partnership to gain access to derelict land grant to support government policy on ground field. A national policy requires an assessment of need and demand, but it's not mandatory. The Council can take into account local harms, local harm has recently been clearly demonstrated in the plan area. I urge the Committee to strengthen and approve the officer recommendation of approval, and I commend to you all the 17 reasons for refusal that WAG have put forward repeatedly over the last few years. Thank you, Chairman. APPLAUSE Thank you, John. Thank you to all the speakers who suffered have kept admirably to your three minutes. It's much appreciated. Our next speaker is Sharon Britton, speaking on behalf of the Wall's community. Sharon, you have three minutes. Thank you. I'd wish to address the matter of viability. Provisions of affordable housing and Section 106 contributions. In the Council's Developer Contributions SPD from February 2020, affordable housing is top of the three high priority requirements. Policy HC4 in the adopted local plan states that all major residential developments will be required to provide 30% of all dwellings to be affordable. Excuse me. There have been a number of viability reviews of this proposal in the last three years. In May 2021, the developer's viability report stated that scheme was unable to support any affordable housing or Section 106 contributions. In April 22, the applicant then offered to provide 14.66% only of affordable homes and contributions of $4.5 million. But this was only on the basis that biodivers to net gain would not be required. In the five and a half years since this application was submitted, contribution requirements have now increased to 7.4 million pounds as we've looked into various other things that have come up in the surveys. The Council recently paid for an independent viability review which concluded that the scheme could now only provide 4.96% affordable housing and contributions of 1.2 million or no affordable homes at all. And Section 106 contributions, totally and only 2.9 million pounds. Seeing as the viability options have changed so much in the last couple of years alone, then how will this stand over the nine years of the development we're looking at outline planning only for Phase 2 with no guarantee it'll ever happen? And it's likely that costs will increase more and the developer plea further poverty as we've seen happen on other developments in recent years. This is totally unacceptable to the residents of this town and it should be to the Council due to going against most of its own policies. We don't need any more overpriced executive homes and the taxpayer once again be in burden with paying even more for the essential services. The average house price in Matlock is now around 10 times the average UK salary, making it exceptionally hard for local people to afford their own homes. We need more affordable homes than ever. If the fundamental needs are not being met, there should be no building allowed as it's just exacerbating this issue. Due to the impact of the peak part, we're taking the majority of the housing allocation in just 42% of the district, which is leading to unsuitable and unsustainable sites such as this being promoted for development. The lack of affordable housing, unacceptable strain and already overstretched services and loss of a beautiful area is just not acceptable. If any site does not meet the Council's own high priority policy requirements, it should mean immediate rejection of this proposal. If it's not refused, the Council will fundamentally be failing in its duties to the communities it represents, as well as demonstrating that the policies are completely pointless if we're not going to stand up to them when they've been challenged. Thank you. Thank you, Sharon. Our next speaker is Nigel Carter. On behalf of the world community, Nigel, three minutes. Thank you. I would like to address the question of the impact on the local landscape and archaeology of this planning application. According to the MPPF, planning decisions should protect and enhance valued landscape, which includes sites of biodiversity, geological value and soils. The walls have been identified by Derbyshire Wildlife Trust as a very important ecological site because there are habitats of principal importance and protected species on site. It is also a locally valued landscape which must be protected. There are two well-loved footpaths, sandy lane to the east and bent lane to the west. Both of these lead to the forest, which is open country and contains a very popular circular walk. The development of the site would adversely affect the footpaths in terms of noise, light pollution and visual immunity. The proposal is therefore a country to the development plan policies and the MPPF in relation to the impact on the landscape. As well as the local views, the walls can be seen from distant viewpoints, including high-tor, riba and the heights of Abraham. There are issues with the contours and altitude from these different locations and the impact has not, therefore, been properly and realistically addressed. The development site also borders several listed buildings, including Wells Farm with its three Grade II listed bonds, and the development of three listed buildings in their setting will be detrimental to the heritage assets these 17th-century buildings represent. The site in the revised SHLAA scores poorly on the Derbyshire Dale's local plan review of historical environments. The County Council archaeologist noted that there are known historical lead smelt remains and has placed a condition that a substantial post-consent scheme of archaeological work is required. He notes that the highest historical landscape value has a very well-presented enclosed period landscape. Development of the site and its effects on the list of buildings and historic landscape is contrary to the Derbyshire Dale's adopted local plan protecting historical environments, quote, heritage assets also make a significant contribution to the sense of local identity and a new development should make a positive contribution to the historical character of the area. Page 51, paragraph 5.9, Derbyshire Dale's adopted local plan 2017. After taking these facts into consideration, it seems to me that this application of granted would lead to the destruction of a site of significant historical value and create a blot on the landscape of this fine town. I urge you to reject this application for the sake of the town and future generations. Thank you. Thank you, Nigel. Mr. Rob Atkin, again, on behalf of the world community. Chair, members. Years ago, Matlock might experience a significant flooding event once every 10 years or so, but a major change in frequency has occurred. It's not due to river flooding, but from the built area on the town's northern slopes. Climate change is a contributor, but to further put this into perspective, the number of dwellings in Matlock's All Saints Ward without this proposal has grown by almost 15% in the last 20 years. However, if we also add three recent developments, one yet to be completed just over the Chesterfield Road boundary, this increase is approaching 20% more dwellings. The cumulative impact, this level of growth without suitable investment may have had on key infrastructure is substantial. Plan policies this application fails include S1, S7, PD-15 and 8, suitable development in Matlock. Should I say sustainable development in Matlock landscape, flood risk and affordable housing policy, HC4. Policy DS4 specifically refers to capacity in local sewage networks. An NP-PF paragraphs 157173 and 175 are not met. In this application, the drainage proposal includes a cascaded series of dams above the steep slopes of the town, grant of permission, even in principle, before fully assessing the potential risk is utterly unacceptable. And as has been recently pointed out, reserved matters does not cover drainage. Attenuation has a cumulative capacity of up to 21 million litres. That weighs 21,000 tonnes above the steep slopes of this town. No breach analysis has been put forward. Maintenance and monitoring proposals are inadequate. At the end of July 23, a panel engineer response on the attenuation mentions, and I quote the exact wording, They do propose a potential threat which does not appear to have been assessed. And also, We would expect these ponds to pose a threat to life and would fall under flood category A if they were subject to the Reservoirs Act. There's no mention of water courses in the application until the community pointed out this omission. The proposal to divert and cut the red water course is against LLFA and environment agency policy, and there's a lack of evidence of accurate flow rate assessments. The Derwent Valley Aqueduct crosses the site and has breached downstream of Matlock three times since the application was submitted. I'll let you imagine the consequence of that risk. Time now precludes me from making further points, but I implore the members to endorse the officer's recommendation. Thank you. APPLAUSE Thank you, Rob. Our next speaker is Jenny Follow, the world's community. Thank you. I'm speaking as a Matlock resident, concerned parent, registered nurse and senior manager at the National Guardian Office for the NHS. On the 7th of September 2020, a letter from Derbyshire County Council Highways Department stated that there are significant numbers of school children that currently walk to school and cross walled road at peak times and that this will continue during and after development takes place. In a response to the applicant's transport assessment, the highway's officer stated that the walled road junction will see a significant increase in vehicle movements which existing school children will be obligated to cross, particularly during morning peak hour. The traffic increase in the morning is predicted at 269%, and in the evening, an increase of 645%. The highway's officer clearly stated concerns over pedestrian safety during the construction phase of the development. Because of the significant traffic encountered by pedestrians and school children, particularly heavy goods vehicles predicted between 50 and 90 movements per day for the nine years of construction. A freedom of information request submitted on the 8th of March 2023, highlighting emails from the highways, where they stated, and I quote,We have witnessed a few dodgy moments with students crossing the walled road and have noted large groups of school children walking up and down who tend to spill into the road a lot. Traffic accident data is at least five years out of date, and in the last year alone, there have been two very serious accidents where a child has been knocked over on the Chesterfield Road. Communications from Highfield School at Lumsdale site, due to busyness of the junction leading into the school itself and following a risk assessment to advising parents to drop school children off on walled road. Highways development controls stated that although the pedestrian crossing was in the optimal position, as it was at the top of the hill, the recommendation is to move the crossing further down Chesterfield Road with a new footpath on the opposite side. If the current pedestrian crossing is in the optimal place for visibility and it's directly outside the school entrance, why would you agree to remove it without proper risk assessment? There is also the issue of lack of equality impact assessment to cover vulnerable groups and assess the safety risk this development poses to our school children. This being overlooked shows a total lack of responsibility for risk assessment and governance for the protection of vulnerable school children. As a result of the huge recent developments already in the north of Matlock, there is currently a cumulative effect of highway safety with roads operating over capacity and to allow this development to go ahead would be wholly unacceptable. Thank you. Thank you, Jenny. We now have Christine Gregory speaking on behalf of the Wales community. I'm a freelance nature writer and photographer, also an insect and mammal monitoring volunteer. I've worked closely with the Peak District National Park Authority, Derbyshire Wildlife Trust and Butterfly Conservation. I've spent decades witnessing local species decline and habitat loss. On Tuesday afternoon this week, I went to look over the gate at the wolds and was pleased to see four hairs, a species that I've studied for the last 15 years. Hairs can be regarded as an indicator species in farmland. The sedentary mammals with confined home ranges, they have specific habitat requirements, including shelter, such as scrub, rushes, hedges, walls, and access to woodland, in addition to open grassland with traditional sword, wildflowers and herbs that they depend on for year-round forage. Brown hair numbers have declined by 75% since the war, and so it was one of the first species chosen by the UK government to have its own biodiversity action plan. 90% of species-rich grassland was lost during the 20th century with catastrophic impacts on farmland animals, such as lapwing, snipe, yellow hammer, and linet. Where hairs have held on, they can indicate a certain level of farmland biodiversity. On my visit, I heard and saw two missile thrushes, a songthrush, greenfinch, linets, and starlings, also housebarrows. All of these are red-list species. This is a unique place with its complex topography and valuable mosaic of landscape features and range of habitats, including both species-rich pastures, improved pastures, hedges, mature trees, scrub, and wet flush. Adjacent to Matlock More and Matlock for its local wildlife sites, the world provides both a wildlife corridor and a buffer between town and country. In doing so, it enhances the value of both of these sites. We have lost 90% of wetland habitats since the Second World War through drainage and agricultural intensification, so the extensive wet flush in the world has an important function of flood mitigation, carbon sequestration, and is home to numerous invertebrates, birds, amphibians, and some mammals. Derbyshire Wildlife Trust has drawn attention to the potential loss of habitats of principal concern. These include low land dry acid grassland, purple, more grass, and rush pasture. These habitats are recognised as UK bat priority habitat types and are listed as habitats of principal importance in section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act of 2006. The loss of these priority habitats will be counter to both local and national policy. I understand that developers propose that the value in which these priority habitats occur will be filled with contaminated soils and the valley remodelled. It's a fantasy to suggest that such habitats, which have evolved over hundreds of years, can be recreated. The first principle in the mitigation hierarchy of the government's biodiversity net game framework is that unacceptable impacts should be avoided at present a strategy for mitigation and compensating for species loss. Consequent on development has not been presented. I was only going to add that the world could be a wonderful site for nature recovery for all of us in this area. Thank you, Christine. Next speaker, Professor Steve Martin, on behalf of the world community for three minutes. Thank you, Chair and members and officers. For almost 40 years, I've been an agricultural scientist and an environmental consultant advising various parts of government, universities and businesses. I want to make a comment based on whether this site should ever have been put on the local plan, on the basis of the climate emergency. In my view, it was a serious misjudgment of the devastating impacts of surface water flooding in Matlock, its residents and the businesses it supports. Examples of which have routinely been experienced because of recent household developments. Climate change impacts on the water cycle by influencing when, where and how much rain falls. It also leads to more severe weather events over time. We are now repeatedly experiencing the serious impacts of global warming. The more heavy and intense rain we are seeing in recent years are only the beginning as warming beyond 1.5 degrees takes place. We can expect and experience more of this. Much more rain and much more flooding. Enhanced warming is predicted soon to be anything from 3 to 4 degrees. This is because the levels of greenhouse gases are not falling. They are increasing carbon dioxide, methane and the warming impacts from evaporating water vapor and transpiration from vegetation. In preparing for this meeting, I read the most recent weekly environment agency bulletin on rainfall and river flows from March 2024. And this is what it said. It has been another wet week across England, although slightly less so in the eastern southeast. River flows increased at more than 85% of the sites we report on. It seems hardly anything to worry about, doesn't it, framed in that kind of language. But tell that to the residents of old Hackney Lane where I live. We are three to four new springs of surface in homeowners gardens and now pour gallons of water onto the lane. And of course the removal of a huge chunk of tarmac off the lane. Lifted the surface off and increased the depth of numerous potholes. In summary, surface water flooding is the most widespread flood risk in England, affecting around 3.2 million properties. It is caused by a combination of factors including intense rainfall, soil permeability, topography, drainage system capacity and maintenance and physical barriers such as buildings. But the assessment of risk is hugely difficult. Even impossible at a local level, because all the factors mentioned above have not been adequately researched in any way quantifiable by the environment agents. Which makes risk assessment hugely problematic and in my view impossible. That's why I object to this application. Thank you, Professor Martin and next speaker is John Tristan on behalf of the world's community. John. Good evening. John, President, retired university lecturer and member of WAG. Flooding is a constant threat on the site. WAG has always held that the irregular and unpredictable floods, seeps and boggy areas on the site are related to the complexities of the rocks beneath it. The geology of the area consists of a Chatsworth grit bluff which has a coarse sandstone forming the highest ground in the valley and which overlies permeable sandstone beds on which the site is located. The sandstone is gravelly but also lenticular with inlier lenses of impermeable mudstone. Just below the upper Chatsworth grit there are boulder head deposits covering the more gentle slopes. These head deposits may act as an impermeable cap to the upper surface of the sandstone forcing groundwater traveling through the sandstone to emerge further down the slope than may be expected. There is some land sliding in the area from the toe of which springs may occur. While the sandstone bed is permeable allowing water to pass through it the inlier lenses of mudstone are impermeable and were laid down as mud in hollows and stream beds. As these lenses can vary in size, shape and location. Water entering the site from the overlying Chatsworth grit sinks into the sandstone and moves downhill but if intercepted by mudstone inliers it can be held up, deflected to another path or forced to the surface. Clearly the location of the lenses plays an important part in where surface problems occur. Currently details of their location, size and shape are not fully known. In this situation the flow of groundwater is rather like the irregular path of the ball in a pinball game so creating highly irregular surface conditions. Dealing with such unpredictable resurgence is a whack-a-mole exercise of serious proportions. The location or nature of much of the groundwater has not been determined. Different levels of permeability in the rocks produces another potential problem. Within the sandstone there are gravel deposits which are more highly permeable than the sandstone. Should any excavation break into the gravels there could be rapid seepage and rapid loss of water from the sandstone creating serious downslope issues. It is imperative that more details are known about the rock structures and water flows if flood risk is to be managed. The application should be refused. Thank you John. Next speaker is Colleen Marples on behalf of the world community. Chair, I've got the representation from Colleen Marples in my actual piece. Do you want me to do it later when I do mine? You may speak on behalf of Colleen Marples. You have three minutes Colleen. Thank you. My name is Steve Wayne and I speak on behalf of Colleen Marples. Developers have tried and failed to build houses on the walls for over 50 years. Each time they have been refused and the many reasons for refusal have not magically gone away. In fact, they are most relevant, more relevant than ever. Part of the proposed well site was given a priority for allocation in the previous draft local plan. This states that this site is inappropriate for development due to the fact there are insurmountable constraints in respect of the key development criteria. This was written by Mike Hayes in 2012, then Derbyshedale's district council's policy planning manager. So what has changed? What magic has happened to make that part of the site suitable now? What are we still waiting? Why are we still waiting for an answer? What magical transformation has occurred with these sites in the intervening years? Are they now less elevated, easier to access? Have the volumes of traffic decreased? Have school places, GP surgeries and infrastructure been improved to the extent that hundreds of extra homes will not be an unfeasible burden on the existing facilities? The short answer is no. In fact, the district council's own local plan advisor committee voted on the site, voted the site out of the draft local plan due to the many constraints only for it to be voted back on by Councillors of that third time, the very next week. In the revised 2022 schlar ratings, this site now rates red for impacts on landscape sensitivity, wildlife and biodiversity and amber for impacts on sewage and infrastructure, showing that more information is, showing that as more information is unearthed, the more unsuitable this site clearly becomes. In fact, out of 17 consultee responses, there are three red and 11 ambers against this site, schlar 224. And if the site had been scored this badly at the initial local plan draft stage, there is no way it would now have progressed to be included. So why is it included as an insurance policy for this council? There is a reason why planning applications for the worlds have failed for half a century. The site is unsustainable, undeliverable, unsuitable and unviable and should be protected for future generations. Thank you. Thank you, Steve, on behalf of Colleen Martin. Sorry, thank you, behalf of Colleen Marples. We now have Christine Martin. Christine, do I understand you are presenting a petition? I have, yes, I'll hand it to the end. Thank you, Chair and Councillors. I've lived on Grits from MOBE since 1991. I'm presenting an online petition organised by World's Action Group. The change.org petition has 2,662 supporters asking to refuse and remove the world's application from the local plan to protect this site for future generations. Comments from residents emphasise the importance of keeping this locally valued landscape as a natural flood defence, a huge carbon soak that also supports an ecologically diverse habitat for rare wildlife and plants. They are extremely concerned about the increased risks from traffic and road safety, the dangerously restricted access to the site, permanent loss of wildlife and habitat and yet more flooding and sewage discharges affecting the soil. Matlock is already at breaking point. It will put even more pressure on the town's creaking infrastructure, including the overloaded Victorian sewage system, which has seen many properties and streets flooded with human waste. This is a plan that has not had adequate risk assessment done, leaving the Council and taxpayers picking up the costs long after the developer has gone. The increased effects from new developments have clearly not mitigated surface water runoff and our community has borne the brunt of regular flooding events each year. It poses a risk to life and has serious shortcomings in both its full and outlined submissions. The Planning Committee will hear a lot of assurances from the developer that they can mitigate all issues, a very convenient phrase on paper, but residents have no faith at all that the developers have an understanding regarding the realities of this site. Why haven't statutory consultees assess the cumulative risks for all the sites? In every way that matters, it conflicts with both national and local planning policies and should be refused for development. If the developer is so keen to help the Council meet their target to help with the housing crisis, why have they reduced social housing numbers to the point they are non-existent? Their time-money and efforts over the last 12 years could have been spent developing the many brownfield sites that are still available. NPPF policies are very clear, making as much use as possible of previously developed or brownfield land. There are no benefits to MATLOC from this development whatsoever. Please refuse and remove this application. It's in your hands to do the right thing for our community and for future generations. Thank you. Before you go, would you mind reading out the petition for the benefit of members of the planning committee please? Why this petition matters, it was started by Walled's, the WAGS, Walled's Action Group, refused the Walled's application and removed it from the Derbyshire Dale's local plan. Developers want to put over 430 houses and a fast food outlook on the MATLOC walls. The Walled's is 23.6 hectares or 5.83 acres of locally valued historic Greenfield landscape high above the small town of MATLOC. It's a natural flood defence and an important wildlife habitat. Please help us get this application refused and remove this precious place from the Derbyshire Dale's local plan. Help us to protect it for future generations. By assigning this petition, you are objecting to planning application 18/01242/EIA and requesting that your objection is taken into consideration by Derbyshire Dale's district council. We've been fighting for over a decade to protect this special place from unsustainable and unnecessary development. The issues with developing the MATLOC walls are very serious, which is why this controversial planning application is still on the table nearly five years after being submitted. Please help us to save this much of a place. Thank you for your support. Yes, can I formally receive the petition from you and members of the Planning Committee will take this into account in their consideration of the application. Our next speaker is Peter Wild on behalf of Walled's community, Peter. And you have three minutes, Peter. Mr Chairman, one very good reason to refuse this application concerns the appalling access to the site, which highlights an utter disregard for the well-being of existing residents. Think of other large developments, such as Bentley Bridge Road, Moorlage, Presentation Avenue, Stroke Barley Way, Stroke Ringel Rise, Whitworth Dale, etc., etc., they all have easy access to a main road. The proposed development is different, possibly unique, in that access is via a grossly inadequate winding route through the heart of an existing residential backwater. This is a route where children play in relative safety. However, this pleasant environment would be completely destroyed should gritstone road become a through route serving scores and scores more houses. It's a double whammy, exposing children to more particulate pollution, as well as increased danger from motor vehicles, including lots of construction, HGVs. There will be many, many years of dust, fumes, mud and noise. It's also a punch on the nose for the National Planning Policy Framework, whose core principles includeways to enhance and improve the places in which people live and the provision ofhigh quality design and amenity for existing residents. The full application also ignores these core principles. Some of the proposed units on this steeply rising site will very closely overlook existing houses, thus creating a severe loss of privacy, exacerbated by totally inadequate screen planting. It's a world away from the high quality, wide spaces, shielding, maulage, pringle-rise and barley way. We strongly recommend that this application is refused. Thank you, Peter. Next speaker, Mr David Ball, on behalf of the Wall's community. My name is David Ball. I fully support the officer in recommending that this application is refused. However, I would like to draw your attention to an important issue that was overlooked in the officer's report. The developer proposes to divert and cover two thirds of the upper old spring, the ordinary watercourse that runs through phase one of the proposed development site into a swale, which then discharges fire and overflow into the existing culvert behind mentally close. Serious concerns have been raised regarding this swale and the potential for increased flood risk. On three separate occasions, the developer has attempted to establish where water entering the culvert behind mentally close goes. CCTV surveys were unsuccessful due to a quote collapsed culvert downstream. The culvert outfalls at a diversion stone on Wall's reservoir grounds. This was discovered by a resident in June 2023 using an 1830s map and a phone. The local flood authority was notified at this time. Flow tests undertaken in December indicate the culvert does not discharge accordingly. It is highly probable that it is collapsed in more than one place. This is evidenced by extensive pondings surrounding the inlet of the culvert during periods of heavy rain. This is both a restriction of the 150 millimetre culvert aperture and the collapse pipe backing up. This leads to flooding across grit stone road. Even during normal dry weather conditions, it is notable that more water enters the culvert than eventually reaches the diversion stone. It appears that water is not only restricted but a significant amount is lost. It takes eight minutes for water to travel the 215 metres from the culvert to the diversion stone. It should take no more than two minutes to travel this distance. The culvert cannot be repaired without specialist engineering work as it runs under properties and houses. Of note, it is confirmed that water from the diversion stone enters the seven-tramp water surface water network via a manhole on Chatsworth Hall grounds. There are three pipes running into the diversion stone, only one of which is the upper walled spring. It is not known where a significant volume of water running through the other two pipes originates. Seven-tramp water schematics do not account for this comprehensive network. Consequently, the surface water pipe capacity assessment undertaken in January 2022 is inaccurate. Additionally, seven-tramp water reassured the flood authority and the developer that foul water from 78 houses, constituting phase one of the proposed development entering manhole 605-300 Grittston Road, which then links into the 150-millimetre combined pipe on Chesterfield Road, can be accommodated within the network. The developer has no plan B. This branch of the combined network is already overburdened and regularly surcharges during periods of heavy rain. In recent years, this has resulted in the flooding of property, insurance claims by business owners, and a risk to public health. Thank you, David. We now have Heather Clifton-Smith speaking on behalf of the walls community. Thank you. You have three minutes, Heather. My name is Heather, and I'm also a wag. I live on Bentley Close, and my back garden actually backs onto the walls. There's a stream behind the hedge at the bottom of my garden, fed from the woods 200 feet above the walls fields. The course of this stream has grown over the 25 years I have lived there, and now has a very wide marshy area around it. The water also runs continuously, even when there's a drought, as was proved, when the temperatures reached 40 degrees two years ago. The stream goes into the cold, as we've just heard, and then onto the diversion stone, just off while eating close, near to another reservoir built in the 1900s. The water then makes its way into Matlock via the drainage system, and at heavy rain times adds to the flooding problems in Matlock. Similar streams are present across the walls, causing the same problems. I am surprised that developers did not find this water course in their site investigation. There is a proposal to build extremely large attenuation ponds, the size of Olympic swimming pools, to control the water. The potential dangers of these structures was reported by a panel engineer from Mott McDonald Consultants. I and my neighbours are very concerned about the dangers of such a proposal with the problem of over-topping of these ponds. A recent independent review of the JBA Consultants stated that proposals for raised attenuation basins require further assessment in order to establish that the proposed ponds operate safely. The recent built estate below Ascalaine treetops has attenuation ponds, and there have been problems with the drainage and flooding since the houses were built, including the local primary school being flooded twice already. The school was built in 1800s, and it has never been flooded before. I am also concerned and worried, as all my neighbours, that the number of lorries using the small local roads to access the walls building site will be very dangerous to all residents. There is already a very difficult blind bend on Gritstone Road just before the access to the site, and even with present-day traffic, utmost care must be taken on this bend. Another problem is that a neighbour needs to sell her house. In the last six months, she has had many viewings from prospective purchases, but as soon as they hear about the proposed development, they withdraw their offer. I understand this has happened to other residents over the last five years, all of which causes anxiety to the residents. It is time that this application is refused. Thank you, Heather. Our next speaker is Mr Nick Lared, who is speaking up in half of Matlock Community Land Trust. Thank you, Chairman, and also as a local resident in fairness. I think it is only fair to, in the first instance, thank the planning team for the report they have produced. It can't have been easy with so many competing views on this, particularly from the developer and the residents, and I certainly support the fact that they have come up with the right recommendation. I want to re-quote something that was mentioned by Colleen earlier, and that is the quote from the local planning advisory committee, which basically said, in its view, there were insurmountable constraints in respect of key development criteria. And the speakers who were spoken tonight have ably demonstrated what they are, and I am sure that the committee have taken due note of those. I particularly want to focus on the traffic flow in and out of such a development, and one of the previous speakers, I think it was Peter mentioned, Grittstone Road. I want to look from a point of view of Cavendish Road. The biggest state along there, Cavendish Park Estate, was probably conceived in the '50s and built in the 1960s. It was a time when every other house, if they were lucky, had embarrassed minor, or perhaps a mini, and two car households were virtually unheard of in that area. It's completely different now. If you put a Toyota high looks onto the Cavendish Park Estate in 1962, then it would have thought it was a lorry. And now there's every other house that's got two or more vehicles. To put an extra, what, 600 vehicles, 700 vehicles, potentially funneling through the Cavendish Park Estate, it's an impossible situation. No amount of public transport or cycle routes or encouragement to walk is going to change the fact that all that traffic ultimately filters onto Cavendish Road. That wasn't a site built in the '60s. It was built in the 1900s, early 1900s. It is just too narrow. It cannot be adapted to be any wider, and all those cars just cannot get in and out of that area. Suggesting that public transport will service that, or is the solution via a local plan, in my view, is just a ignores reality. Now, if I was to ask people to show a show of hands, how many people have come to this site tonight, from less than a mile away and have come on a bus or public transport, I suspect not a single hand would come up. If I asked the only people who'd walked, they might be the odd one. And that is with the reality of what will happen with this estate. Convenience will overtake the need to use public transport, and they will try to exit via roads that are just not capable of that amount of traffic. It collides with reality, and when the highways authority say there will be a little bit more queuing, and people will use public transport, and that the congestion won't be severe. Frankly, I think beggars' belief, and there's a complete distortion of what the real situation will be. Thank you, Mr Elliot. Next speaker is Mr David Ellsworth. Good evening. Today, I speak as a charge civil engineer. Yes, another one. The issue I realise within the planning officer's recommendations report, I am perturbed to note, with respect, that it contains wording that I would strongly advise should be amended, whatever decision is taken at this meeting. This issue is that the district council has commented on statements in the highway authorities consultation response, which they have viewed are soundly based and acceptable by the district council. I have to make it very clear that this is no direct criticism of district council, and this issue raised. The district council is left with little option to note, but to note the contents of the highway authority and comment accordingly. However, I am of the strong belief these statements will definitely be detrimental to the district council in any future litigation matters. In my opinion, this planning application opens a vast chasm between the remit and responsibilities of both local authorities, neither of which have any specific powers over matters, other than on each other remits or over the developer. The specific issue raised is the separate civil engineering work necessary for this site. These works can be described as follows. First one, the housing layout plan for the existing hillside. The links are crossing the central valley located on an earth embankment that is actually a dam. Clossed by to the above is also called cascade of balancing pumps. In fact, these are small dams. All these separate works do not contain any semblance of sufficient information from the developer to even consider an initial basic understanding of the problems to be faced. My opinion is that it is absolutely essential to have clear fact-based proposals at this time available to both authorities to ensure the delivery of this site. The consultation response is a planning process instrument clearly laid out in the Gov.UK portal, which makes it clear the very essence of this process has certainly not been addressed as specified by the county council. My overall views on the various items in highway authority consultation response and for those of the lead local authority are basically on matters within their own remits and responsibilities. My last comment is regarding how this whole process has been effectively subverted and achieved very little today. I must ask you to wonder, please. Yes, we'll do, especially in the case of the county council authorities. However, there's no point in making any further comments. The only thing I would say, which I haven't intended to, is to actually add my recommendations to those that have been put already. I concur with lots of what has been said tonight in my professional opinion. David, thank you, please. Thank you. Our next speaker is our Member of Parliament, Sarah Dimes. Sarah, you have three minutes, please. Good evening, Mr Chairman, members of the committee. This development should never have been in the local plan. This is not a party political issue, it's an issue which is crucial for everyone that lives in Matlock. I am, of course, delighted that your officers have at last reached the point where they can put before your recommendation of refusal. Five and a half years is far too long for this application to have been dragging on. That in itself could be considered an abuse of process. It is quite right and it is indeed the officer's professional duty that the recommendations are based on material planning considerations. But these need to be full reasons. With the information, the expertise you've heard from this evening, I would expect the present recommendations to be, the reasons to be made larger and to include all the expertise we've heard already. Since before my election, numerous residents of the walls and greater area asked me to come and have a look. I've met them and I've seen the site on numerous occasions. They are determined to make the most of their arguments. But what I was determined to do was to do everything I could to support them, whether it is local or in Westminster. For that reason, one of the biggest concerns I had was flooding and this is near, the flooding is a yearly occurrence if not twice yearly on occasions. For this reason, I brought the flooding minister, Rebecca Powell, down on three occasions. That is the level of seriousness I took it. But I am concerned that the officers haven't taken on board the outstanding work with the Environment Agency and Seven Trent Water, the numerous modelling plans that they've got ongoing and indeed the senses that they have in the Victorian system that we have. I'm concerned that evidence is not ready and as such is not taken as a consideration at this stage. I'm also concerned at the £12 million that was spent to assist with the rebuilding of the wall in the town. Is that money to be lost if we overflow the system yet again? We know it's Don Babette, we were just inches away from catastrophe again. I'm fed up with walking round shopping myself and seeing the results of the latest flood, which included feces and toilet paper at the foot of the hill. This cannot go on and it cannot be ignored. I'm also worried about the flora and fauna and the habitat. Greenfield sites, we should not be building on them when we have many brownfield sites in the area and I'm also concerned about highway safety of the children in relation to the heavy traffic that would be going. I'm not satisfied that sufficient information has come from counting that regard. However, one thing that we cannot forget is an independent expert, a key consultant who uses the phrase threat of loss of life". How on earth can we be even considering this with the evidence that is before us? This alone should be enough to see the application refused. I take it my three minutes is up. For these reasons, I thoroughly endorse the recommendations of the officers, but that in itself is not enough. You need to be clear as to how you refuse. Please accept the expertise that's been put before you by the public and please, on this occasion, do not ignore the will of the people. Thank you Sarah. Thank you Sarah. To speak at Laura Stevens on behalf of Dale's Climate Hub. Good evening and thank you for having me. My name is Laura Stevens and I'm a local climate campaigner. I've lived here for 27 years and set up the first climate group in 2005. I've seen many changes. Here in my hands are a couple of old whoops, observed a special magazine which I accidentally left on the kitchen table. I'm very sorry. I came across from the clearout recently and they are dated 8th and 15th of April 1990. That's what set me on my climate journey and now 34 years on, I'm really disappointed that I left them, but 34 years on, here I am, spouting on again about climate change once more. I'm actually quite bored with repeating the same stuff over and over, but in general, most people get it. My wonderful colleague in our Dale's Climate Hub, Wendy Bullard, who cannot be here today, submitted our second comprehensive objection on the 30th of June 2023, citing numerous concerns about this development with regard to many different policies and paragraphs in both the NPPF and the local plan. Too much to comment on. And so much has changed since that local plan was put together in 2017. For one, the threshold of 1.5 degrees as agreed by all nations at the Paris Cup in 2015 has been reached. Can't be surprised that storms, droughts, heat waves and flooding have become the norm. Eleven years ago, I helped Bill McGuire, local science writer and professor of geophysical and climate hazards at UCL, to organise the first in a series of climate festivals in Cromford and we called it warm, wet and windy. In that regard, I'd suggest that the development we are discussing tonight is wholly unsuited to the site. However, much the developer were to attempt to cover all eventualities, and I'm talking attenuation ponds here, they would fail. And why, when it is so clear, and the UN is calling for everyone to act against climate change, does this development not contain homes fit for the future? They're not future-proof, there's no renewable energy, no piles on roof, no sustainable eco-friendly materials listed, there is gas instead of heat pumps, no charging points are standard, it's the rainwater harvesting, are there swift boxes integrated, nothing planned to pass if house standard, just houses which are too big for real local need. Concrete and tarmac, a recipe for disaster, perfect for flood creation, especially at the top of town, you cannot concrete over green fields where there are springs and aquifers and not expect the worst. And I've not even mentioned the loss of biodiversity. Insects on windscreens, yes please. Climate campaigners do not gain anything personally when they make objections and call for action. We do it for humanity, for the planet and for future generations. Developers put profit before people and planet. I'm proud of our district council, the officers and councillors. I'm sorry about this. My father just died. They have grown in my estimation over the years and they understand right from wrong. The mistake was made when the site was incorporated into the local plan. I must ask you to wind up. But our councillors will do the right thing and the local population will thank them for it and stand with them all the way. Thank you. Thank you very much for that, Laura. Our next speaker is Ken Parker on behalf of Matlock Civic Association. Can you have three minutes please? Thank you, Chairman. The Civic Association has consistently opposed this development and our various reasons have been set out in a sequence of letters dating back to 2018. Other speakers have made representations on issues like traffic, flood risk, affordable housing that we also commented on but I won't repeat those points. In this presentation I just want to make three points which are at risk of being overlooked or not covered at all by other speakers. Firstly, this is a greenfield site that has been mentioned. The government's recently strengthened its policy stance on prioritising brownfield sites for development. That's something new. There are brownfield sites in Matlock which would be suitable for redevelopment but even though several have received planning consent, most remain unused or derelict. Previously developed sites are becoming available for new uses all the time, most recently various county council sites. But as long as planning consents continue to be granted for greenfield sites, these brownfield sites will remain undeveloped and a blight on the town. The local plan is due for review and this strengthened government policy linked to a review of potential housing sites. A better recognition of the difficulties of this application site should lead to this site being deleted from the new local plan. It was actually surprising. It was included in the first place. Secondly, we're at risk of overlooking, in some ways, a nice point but an important point about the detailed design. If this were ultimately to go ahead, then the phase one detailed design shows what the developer proposes. Although it's clear that some negotiations have been held with the planning offices, this is a very poor scheme. For example, much of the dwelling frontages are proposed as car parking. There are long lines of equally spaced dwellings creating a repetitious street scene and only 6% of the dwellings would have a stone element while 34% are proposed for red/brown brickwork. And that's now been generally accepted where red brick has been used in this area of Matlock. There was a big mistake. We're about to repeat if this went through like this. There should be more reasons for refusal in this decision notice. We're pleased to see that our representations on flood drainage and flooding issues have been accepted as justifying the refusal of the application. But the proposed reasons for refusal focus on those issues make no reference in many cases to that very many other satisfactory elements in the proposal. If this does ultimately go to an appeal, there should be an opportunity for all the legitimate concerns to be considered. Collectively, they make a compelling case to reject this site. Thank you, Ken. Our next speaker is Mr Paul Hibbert. All you have three minutes. Thank you. As a resident of Moorfield at Cavendish, we've been living there now for over 20 years. We have flooded twice now. Both times have been severe floods. We still flood today and I've spoken to our neighbours who are also concerned of the flooding that goes on where we are. We constantly have a flow of water that runs beyond the back of our wall. We have all had to protect it the best we can. Our biggest fear is that they want to put the drainage tanks directly behind this. How can this help when you take away the very many fields that obviously protect the flooding now and we're still flooding? So by taking these away and adding concrete, you're just adding more danger to the households at the top of Mapflop and flooding down the hill. The second point is traffic. Have you ever been up on Cavendish on a weekend when the football fields are being used? The length of congestion up there is shocking and you feel that by adding over 400 houses in this area is going to cause anything less than sheer devastation up there. Have you also ever tried to actually leave that place when you are on-call firefighter and you want to leave Cavendish to actually attend the fire station on a football day? It is beyond belief. Not to say how difficult it is for the emergency services to gain access with the addition of more houses would be a severe risk for the ambulance service and the fire brigade to gain access to save life and property. I cannot believe you're putting this forward in the first place. Thank you. Thank you, Paul. Our next speaker, Mr. Neil Freight. Good evening and thank you for letting me speak. I've lived off Cavendish Road and been a GP in Matlock for over 25 years and I want to specifically just go over some of the issues with child safety that concern me and develop the comments made earlier by Jenny Fellow. You'll know and I've discovered that the MPPF states in section 9 that the following being insured, safe suitable access, mitigation made to impact on road safety, reduced conflict between pedestrians and vehicles, efficient access by good service and emergency vehicles and priority given first to pedestrian and cycles. You'll know that there are two entrances to the site. Taking the world's road entrance, there's a twice daily flow of hundreds of pupils across world's road. In 2018, Public Health England and Rossboro, the Royal Society of Protection and Accidents published a report called Reducing on Intentional Injuries on the Roads Among Children and Young People based on five years of police reported traffic injuries and this identified that child injuries are highest between 8 and 9am and 3 to 7pm and that 87% of these injuries are on 30 mile an hour roads. It recommends protection by creating safer road environments and this might be addressed in this case by moving the crossing but it will place the crossing under the brow of the hill and that 20 mile an hour limit should be introduced and evidence is their effectiveness but this is not mentioned in documentation and where roads are not 20 mile an hour that separating pedestrians and vehicles provides safety. Reciting the crossing would not be separating children from traffic. This would require a bridge or a tunnel. Finally, the report recommends that action to prevent injury works best when it's coordinated and I can't see that any coordination with PHE has occurred so far. Children under the Equality's Act are a group with protected characteristics because of their age and the local council is bound by public sector equality's duties in its decision-making and I think an assessment of the impact on child safety is missing. The access is not safe or suitable at either point and I support the refusal of the application. Thank you, Neil. Next three speakers are Dalbier-Dales District Council Award Members. They're speaking as ward members this evening and they're not members of the planning committee. Our first ward member to speak is Councillor Steve Wayne and ward members each have five minutes to address the planning committee. Steve. Thank you, Chair. I'm Steve Wayne and I, the Chair said I'm a member of the Dalbier-Dales District Council and also a Council for Matlock Town Council and I'm also the flood member, flood warden for Matlock or one of the flood wardens. Now I can report because we now have two. However, my name isn't Colleen nor am I a wag. Well, I would be tremendously proud to be any of those on the performance these people have done tonight. I wish to commend those from the World's Action Group and others that have provided compelling submissions in respect of this application. WAG is a committed and knowledgeable group of residents who over five years have challenged the unacceptable claims, comments and decisions made by the developer, their agents and certain statutory consultees. Our community has been significantly impacted by the length of time it is taken for this application to come to committee. Planning blight has affected the sale of properties whereby as have been reluctant to purchase properties for fear of having a housing state, the size of ash over built behind them. For others, the timescale has been significantly impacted their health and well-being and I have heard a lot about this as I've been the ward member where this development has proposed. I hope planning members, those everybody but also those that attended yesterday, now appreciate that this is no ordinary Greenfield site. It does have significant constraints to its delivery. Yesterday at the site meeting we were stood on top of a hill close to Sandy Lane. The water was saturated. It was coming over the top of our feet. That is on top of a hill in the valley where they are proposed to culvert to this area that Mr Ball alludes to. There are no records, there are no actual figures to know what volumes of water are going to be coming down this hill. The actual sort of culvert is blocked under there although the developers consultants say it's blocked. The Robish County Council LFA would rather say it's obstructed or restricted. I'm still waiting for photo imagery that was taken at that time. It's being withheld because it might be detrimental to the developer. That is what's being given as a reply to me. So these are the things that I've been up against. As flood warden, I've been particularly interested in the impact of surface water. The original surface water drainage plan was inaccurate and when challenge was reduced by 70 percent, the developer claimed that the 7-tramp water surface water network could accommodate 220 litres per second. This was reduced to 65 litres once 7-tramp had themselves assessed their infrastructure. Subsequently, the developer has had to significantly increase attenuation on the site which has negatively impacted upon the viability. Since the planning application was submitted, Matlock has experienced four significant flooding events. The Bentley Brook, a highly sensitive catchment, has recently had an area wide catchment assessment undertaken by the Environment Agency. The results are deeply concerning. They project that the Nelson Place Pumping Station, a vital asset to alleviate flooding in Matlock, is currently running at capacity but this will have to accommodate flows including those from this application which will double by 2050. That means that pumping station will have to evacuate 12 cubic tonnes of water per second and it's only can do 6 cubic metres at the moment. This is greatly concerning. There will be no onsite affordable housing for this development. This is contrary to the local plan. This council has a duty to develop affordable homes enabling younger people to remain in their communities and to offer downsizing options to others. It is not the responsibility of this council or our community to help bail out a developer who has failed to effectively assess the site or has paid too much money for an option on this site. The developer apparently feels in recent correspondence surprised and perplexed by the council's decision to hold this meeting so quickly. I do not consider that five and a half years or five years and four months is quick. The LPA have given the developer numerous extensions, which I have complained about personally, to enable the submission of a viable and deliverable solution to drainage but this developer has failed to do so. I ask this committee to support the office's recommendations as this is the only safe and positive decision for our town of Matlock. Thank you. Thank you, Steve. My next ward member to speak is Councillor Martin Burfoot. Martin, you also have five minutes. Thank you, Chair, and welcome or I'm pleased that I can make a presentation to you as members of the committee and also the officers. I thank the officers for the excellent report to members tonight. This is almost the case for me of deja vu. The world's planning application and its predecessor versions have always been contentious since an earlier application in the 1990s and more recently this one determined the opposed and campaigned against by the admirable world's action group. Also local councillors and other residents ever since about 2015-16. When we believe the site was subject to a flawed analysis and shouldn't have been allocated for development in the current local plan, I congratulate all these people for their persistence and the evidence of citizen science skills. How can anyone believe that long-standing local councillors should not have ventured a view on these proposals and thereby appearing to fail to represent the almost what the concerns of almost 100% of local residents who are predominantly concerned about highways and drainage matters. We'd have been thrown out by voters and rightly so but the fact remains that we are apparently predetermined, surprise, surprise. At this point I must state that my wife Sue as vice chair of the planning committee and also Matlock's county councillor decided she would have to stand down from the committee tonight simply because she made representations about the world's application some six years ago as county councillor and at the request of council officers despite prefacing her comments with a statement and a disclaimer advised by the district councillor's monitoring officer at the time and don't forget she's been a district councillor for over 20 years and county councillor for seven so she was almost bound to have said something about the situation on this site at some time. Approval of this hybrid application would have a devastating impact on nearby or local residents mainly in terms of the local road network and the entire Matlock bank drainage infrastructure in particular the Bentley Drug Catchment which already accommodates almost all of the runoff from both older and recent housing development and therefore already threatens homes. I will leave other rather we've heard other more expert objectors to explain the geology and substrate structure of the site and also the flood risk from surface water and foul drainage outflows as well as a patiently obvious highway problem. I believe it's inexcusable and frankly inexplicable that the already totally inadequate road network and therefore vehicle access and poor visibility from the site onto Chesapeake Road from Rose Road and Sandie Lane to serve phase one of the proposed development has not been opposed by the local highway authority. For later phases given that we're talking mainly about Cavendish Road and narrow form a country lane and one of the longest cul-de-sacs in the district with only one access onto Wellington Street and exacerbated by park vehicles and already gridlocked on a regular basis surely that is contrary to our 2017 local plan policies S4 and HC19. The elevated and remote location of this site suggests that new residents would inevitably access town centre shops and services by car regardless of existing bus services as well as the offer of an additional bus service and on-site shops by the developer. The damaging effect on the site's ecology which is typically semi-improved quiet species which rush past year and an excellent example of a wildflower or wildflower meadows. All of this if undeveloped is important for storing carbon and holding ground water and therefore an essential contributor to combating climate change. Its loss would have also of course have an impact on insects, birds and small mammals. The significant landscape and visual impact of so many new homes on an other way to expose site is another important justification for refusal given that it would be clearly visible from higher ground to the north and western matter including salters lane and even viewpoints in the national park. This would be contrary to policies S1 and PD1 in the local in the current local plan. Furthermore the air quality impact to almost 10 years of continuous construction traffic and noise would be inevitable and a danger to local health. Another concern of mine shared by officers is the very poor proportion of genuinely affordable homes proposed in 2020 14.6 of the total. I now understand it is now it is nil with a contribution to provision elsewhere which is I believe completely unacceptable. Finally it needs to be said that back in 2016 when the world site was allocated for development it was excluded from the then local plan advisory committee. The former conservative administration insisted that the world had to be allocated as part of their programme if you call it to extend our main towns while their leaders rejected almost all new development in their own wards. Therefore they made sure the decision was soon overturned by the full council explaining exactly why we are and where we are today. Therefore I ask committee members to support our officers' excellently poor and vote to refuse this totally inappropriate planning applications for the reasons stated. Thank you Martin. Our third ward member to speak is councilor Superfoot. So you also have five minutes. Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to speak to tonight as one of the three Macloch ward members as well as county councillor for Macloch. Those of us who live in Macloch know how important and precious the land known as the walls is in terms of ecology, biodiversity, habitat, landscape and as a natural flood defence. Residents many of them eminently knowledgeable and professionally qualified have quite rightly had long summing concerns about this development and to be honest have felt let down by those statutory consultees whose duty it is to protect us. I cannot underestimate the dedication and persistence shown by our local groups namely the walls action group, residents and Macloch's councillors including our own flood wardens, Councillor Wayne and Lynthway all of whom have questioned and challenged this development. I thank them all. Macloch is at a crisis point in terms of flood risk. We also have an out of date and inadequate sewage system, increased traffic congestion and pressure on our vital services etc. The consequences of overdevelopment have resulted in serious and unacceptable flooding and sewage problems experienced by residents of hearse farm, lily bank clothes, tree tops etc and indeed not that long ago we had raw sewage being found in the convent broiler room. Most concerning to me is the independent engineers conclusion that the large structures so-called ponds risk the lies of those downstream if these structures were to fail, a breach would be disastrous. You have heard tonight from speakers with evidence to reinforce the reasons for refusal put forward by our professional planners, flood risk impact on the road network, highway safety, threat to habitat, harm to the character and appearance of the town and lack of affordable housing. The development would extend the northern fringe of Macloch resulting in urban sprawl, visually intrusive development at the top of our town. The site is clearly not in a location to enable sustainable transport in either the short or long term. Sustainable forms of transport whilst desirable and not enforceable and the inclusion of the cafe, take away etc will increase car movements, cycling and walking down to town is feasible but up the hill I think not. I am disappointed that Derbyshire County Council highways do not consider the impact of all these new houses as a previous speaker said, severe stating that some queuing and delay will follow. Covenant road, for example, is already a single carriageway with cars parked at all times. We have poor visibility at Wall's Road onto Chesterfield Road and congestion in the town centre. In terms of affordable housing our own policies require 30%. We were often originally 14.66%. And the reason given was claims of abnormal and inflated costs and I understand that we are not offered any on this site. To conclude any small benefits from this development are far outweighed by the dis-benefits. The reasons given for refusal are robust and defensible. I do not feel I need to repeat them. All these reasons are contrary to the policies of our own adopted local plan and the NPPF as listed in detail on page 147 of the officers report. I urge members to listen to our officers and unanimously refuse this application. Thank you for listening. Thank you, Sue. And our final speaker this evening is Mr Tom Dilistan, who is speaking up in half of the applicant. Could I just ask everyone please to extend the courtesy to Mr Dilistan not to interrupt. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. There has been a lot of sound and fury about this scheme but planning committee has a quasi-judicial role and must take a dispassionate view of the technical evidence and give substantial weight to the views of statutory consultees. Only having five minutes I won't be able to respond to the points raised by the speakers today but I will cover a few key issues. As you know planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan and less material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF sets out that the proposals which accord with the development plan should be approved without delay. The site is allocated in the local plan for residential development and therefore the principle of development has been established. Due to the lack of a five-year supply in the district the tilted balance set out in the NPPF applies. However as we will come on to this is not a decision whether the planning balance or the principle of the development is an issue for officers. The supporting information is at the heart of the reasons for refusal. There is no debate that the area suffers from flooding problems and residents have rightly raised this as a concern. We are alive to these concerns and work with stakeholders over several years to explore this matter. I am a town planet not a drainage engineer. The timing of the committee just before the East Bank holidays means our drainage consultant is unable to attend to give committee members an expert view on drainage proposals. The LLFA confirmed in their comments on the scheme dated 27th of September 2023 that they were satisfied that planning permission could be granted subject to conditions. No changes to the scheme have been made since that date. We have provided a response to the matters raised in the JBA report and consider that the drainage proposals are appropriate for the site. I note that the LFA have not commented on our response to the JBA report. This is a hybrid application with phase one in full and the remainder in outline. Outline applications are a normal part of delivering development and allow for principles to be established with detailed design provided as part of reserve matters applications or in the case of drainage condition. These will be fully scrutinised by the LPA and statutory consultees and can be refused if the proposals do not meet the required standards. This committee and the planning inspectorate have applied pre-commencement drainage related conditions to a number of outline or hybrid planning applications previously. As such it is our view the reason for refusal if controllable by condition and falls away. In relation to the second reason for refusal our ecologist has provided a response to Derbyshire wildlife trust setting out that the lining of the ponds will not affect the translocation of rush pastures. This reason for refusal therefore falls away. We consider an appropriate drainage strategy has been provided for the outline section of the site. This is controllable by condition along with the other elements of the scheme. As such the LPA can scrutinise the impact on the character and appearance of the area and reason for refusal three also falls away. In relation to reason four unfortunately due to the significant increase in financial contributions required for months such as education and highways the scheme is no longer able to provide affordable housing. This is the conclusion of one of the two scenarios considered by the LPA's own viability expert in his report dated 7th of November 2023. The section 106 agreement can include a mechanism to ensure phase one addresses its full impact and as such reason for refusal falls away. Officers have confirmed that the scheme is sustainably located and is acceptable in relation to the following matters. Landscape, transport and access in accordance with the highways authorities comments, historic environment, ground conditions and contamination and noise and vibration and climate change. The scheme will deliver a net gain in biodiversity and the wildlife trust was satisfied with the scheme subject to conditions. The scheme will provide a number of benefits which need to be given substantial weight in the decision. These include the provision of over 400 high quality homes including solar panels and EV charging points in a first-tier settlement. It's a substantial economic benefit including almost 100 full-time equivalent construction jobs and 20 full-time equivalent jobs in the local centre. The delivery of a publicly accessible countryside park and a significant amount of other green space. The provision of ponds to address overland flows from outside our site which will slow down the time taken for rainwater to flow into the River Derwent. The committee have to make a decisions in line with section 386 of the 2004 Planning and Comples Free Purchase Act and the Council's Constitution. The site is allocated for development in the local plan and there is not a five-year land supply meaning the tilt of balance applies. Applications which are called to the local plan should be approved without delay where the officers consider there is insufficient information additional information is being provided. As such it is our view that there is sufficient information available to you to enable approval of this application. Thank you. Thank you Tom. That concludes the public participation part of the meeting. Chris Smith, our development manager, will I'm sure be referring to a number of the points that have been made by the speakers. Could I thank all the speakers from the first to the last for the way in which you've informed planning committee members this evening and can I also thank all those who have contributed any way to the material which the speakers have laid before us. I'm going to a journal meeting now for I'm going to a journal meeting for until seven o'clock to allow us a short comfort break. As I mentioned the toilets can be found out to the doors behind you and to the left where there's disabled toilets. There's also a toilet facility through the doors on my left and up and to the right. So committee members can we please be about about seven o'clock. Thank you. Thank you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I'm going to be about seven o'clock. I think you call it. Thank you colleagues. As I said, I'm now going to ask Chris what more our development manager to present the application together with recommendations. Chris will also refer to key aspects of the late representations, and I'm sure to certainly these issues raised by the speakers. Chris. Thank you, Chair. Owing to the scale and complexity of this application is really important that I set out clearly what is proposed. I plan to do that through going through the presentation and the various documents and plans that contain within that presentation. Before I do, it's important just to set out briefly the content of the late representation sheet that's before members this evening. The local planning authority has received late representations from the applicant on the Friday before this meeting. Within those representations are a number of fairly pertinent points that have to be addressed in terms of how that affects our consideration of this application. The first point the applicant makes is in relation to their surprise at this meeting and the lack of time that they've had to prepare and submit information to us to address the concerns raised by the Council's appointed independent drainage engineer. They've also sought to address concerns raised by Derbyshire Wildlife Trust. Those comments have been provided in summary form in the late representation sheet, but they have been uploaded to the Council's website and members have had opportunity to fully consider those comments. The applicant also points to their intention to revisit viability and that came after their knowledge of this matter being considered at planning committee this evening. Officers view on that is that the viability of the application remains a concern and I'll explain the reasons for that shortly. But there are still other fundamental issues with the application and the requirement to continue to act or to continue to be proactive and positive is considered best served in this case. By issuing decision on this application at the earliest opportunity. And that's because there are significant shortcomings and fundamental concerns with the application and to re enter into discussions on viability and some of the other concerns that have been raised and would be futile in that respect. And we also have to bear in mind and the last greed extension of time, which was on the 1st of November with any respect of this application. I think it's really important for an application of this scale to be heard at local level. And there's a danger that if we don't make a decision that a decision will be taken by the planning spectra because the applicant would have a right to appeal against non-determination. So obviously that's had a bearing on us taking this this matter to to committee this evening. The applicant has referred to there without prejudice offer to us late in 2023 with regards to the amount of affordable housing that was offered up to be delivered across the development site. And the level of developer contributions to be to be provided. At the time that they presented without prejudice offer to us, they explain that they've not updated the values and costs that were adopted by our own independent viability experts in 2023. Just to keep the sensitivity testing straightforward with regards to viability. And we accepted that position as being a fair and reasonable one. However, our independent viability expert did say that based on economic conditions at that time, a reduced level of affordable housing and develop contributions explained by some of the speakers this evening was was a justifiable position. The applicant has referred back to those comments and has put forward as part of this application before members this evening that they no longer now wish to provide any affordable housing. And we'll make the required level of development contributions and we need to give that consideration. Officers of the view that the whole approach to viability on this site is flawed in that viability has been looked at as a whole, but the development is presented in phases. We've got full application and then we've got later outline parts of the application. We've got significant abnormal costs associated with developing this site and a lot of those abnormal costs associated with the later phases. And I think to look at viability holistically in that way is a flaw because we could find ourselves in a situation where phase one which is applied for in full is built out and we don't deliver the requisite or the level of affordable housing that could potentially be made just based on that phase alone. That's a significant shortcoming with this particular application. So you'll note in the late representations that there's a typographical error in relation to the first reason for refusal that members need to be mindful of. So in the agenda this evening, there is reference to policy S8 of the adopted to our Stales local plan. It should be PDA switch deals with flood risk and we've corrected that in the late representation sheet and if members reminded to refuse permission in accordance with officer recommendation, it would be on the basis in the respect of reason for refusal number one. In respect to reason for refusal number four has changed slightly and members need to have regard to the revised wording of reason for refusal number four. And you'll note that there's two elements to it because in reducing the affordable housing offer, the applicant has also made it clear that they do not want any review mechanisms in any associated section 106 agreement or any clawback provisions. And for development with significant abnormal costs such as this and over a significant build program over a nine year period, we feel that that's unacceptable. Because in nine years time, I'm sure economic conditions will be completely different. House prices may go up, it may go down, but we feel that there's an authority in order to be able to get a fair deal that we should consider what those sales values are at that time. And if there is additional profit to be made, that that should be spent on delivering affordable housing. And that's a significant issue for us, hence why viability features is a reason for refusal in respect to this application. So if members were minded to refuse the application, it would be on the basis that condition, sorry, reason for refusal number four would follow that set out in the late representation sheet. And that states the application does not consider or include a mechanism to secure the level of affordable housing across the different phases of the development that can potentially be viable made. And the applicant is not willing to include review mechanisms or clawback provisions in any legal agreement. The development therefore fails to maximize the delivery of affordable housing on this strategically important site and across the plan area, in contrast to requirements of policies, S10 and HC for the adopted established sales local plan. So if members were minded to accept officer recommendations needed to have regard to those changes to the reasons for refusal. I'd just like to draw members attention to other late representations that have been received. The council has received comments from the applicant's legal council. Again, expressing surprise at the application has been considered a committee. They consider the case officer has approached the assessment of the application with a closed mind and has not given the applicant enough notice of the committee to be able to address officer concerns, citing seven working days notice. In response to that, officers have stated that the applicant was made aware of the provisional committee date on the 8th of March. And they only identified that they were considering reviewing viability after they notified of that potential committee date. The applicant has also had opportunities to present additional information to us, which has been considered in the late representation sheet. And it's previously set out, doesn't address the fundamental concerns that we have with the application. We have also looked at viability and we've looked at all of the outstanding issues in the round. And that's something that's not picked up in the council's legal letter that we've received. We're happy that we've robustly looked at this application. The application has been pending consideration for five years. Officers have given the applicant ample time to address concerns and run a position where we feel that the issues associated with the application are so significant that they can't be overcome. Hence why we're presenting this application before you this evening for determination. We've also received representations from the public, which members have had time to read meeting this evening, and this was circulated and made available on the council's website earlier today. Returning to the application. The chair has set out the nature of the application. It is a hybrid planning application, so it's split into two parts. We've got a full part and we've got an outline part to the application. Current slide shows the extent of the application site area. The application site area comprises land covering just under 24 hectares to the north of Matlock beyond existing residential development. It includes a series of sloping pastoral fields, injected by dry stone walls. This plan shows the layout of the full part of the application. This seeks permission for 78 dwellings. We undertook a visit to the site yesterday. We spent a lot of time looking at the site, the proposal, the constraints and the potential impacts of this development on the environment. The proposal is to form an access through the site, which will form a continuation of Grittstone Road, with a new priority junction being created at Grittstone Road, directing traffic onto Wall's Road. The proposal is to widen the carriage way slightly and to provide six-meter wide carriage way to accommodate two-way traffic. The proposal is to continue the street scene into the development site, and as the road branches left, that provides a link to the later phases of development. This full application seeks permission for 78 dwellings. You can see the extent of development in the layout of that development and its relationship to existing houses on Grittstone Road. Members were able to judge the impacts of those relationships yesterday and had a feel for the scale of development and proximity of the houses to existing properties. There is an area of woodland to the north of the site, which is to be maintained. Officers have negotiated revisions to the layout to ensure that the woodland is adversely affected by the development. There is appropriate space to ensure that the trees are a product afforded appropriate protection. We have two fairly large depressions in the area of open space, one of which is an attenuation basin and then a slightly smaller attenuation basin to the rear of the properties on Bentley Close. The speaker has mentioned materials. This plan, although I appreciate it, would be difficult to pick out the detail on the presentation, shows the distribution of materials across the site. The intention is that the properties fronting Sandy Lane will be constructed in natural stone, slightly different appearance to reflect the character of development that you see along Sandy Lane, but clearly the development form part of a larger state of housing in a relatively new housing estate. Beyond those properties, it is proposed to have a transition of bricks from a lighter buff brick to a darker buff brick to reflect some of the brick colours and tones that you see on the existing development in that area. Just to clarify, the intention is not to have any red brick on this site. It is to be constructed in stone with buff bricks. This gives you an indication of the houses on, well, 3D interpretation of the houses on Sandy Lane and the view that you have of those. We have then got the view of the streets that you have seen along the Great Stone Road, so you can see their pairs of houses and the houses rise in height slightly at the central part, where we have two and half storey properties with normal windows, some render, but then buff brick. You have got there an artist's impression of the attenuation features on the right-hand side. We have got them, let's go back aside, some more street scenes which show you the general appearance of the houses, fairly traditional in terms of appearance and form, some variety of materials, use of traditional details, including chimneys and porches. Again, more of the same pairs of semis there, some terraced properties, but fairly traditional and simple in their built form and appearance. Individual house types, I will flick through these because there is an awful lot of them. It just gives you a feel for the type of architecture that will be adopted on this particular site. Then we have got detailed landscaping proposals for the site. This shows additional tree planting around the woodland area, an extension of that woodland area westward. We have also got a landscape buffer between existing development along the Great Stone Road and the application site. It's a relatively narrow margin with tree planting in there which will be maintained by a measurement company would fall outside of privately owned gardens to provide a bit of a buffer between the proposed dwellings and the existing properties. Where houses sit close to development site, offices have negotiated on the type of houses and where houses sit close to development sites proposed to have a series of bungalows and given the close proximity to ensure there will be no unacceptable overbearing or loss of privacy. We should say overbearing effects. That continuation of that landscape buffer along that southern boundary. In terms of the later phases of development, the first phase which is applied for four is for 78 houses. We then got the second phase which is the part of the site outlining yellow and anything pig that out on the presentation. That includes the link road and the link road to pinewood road must be delivered before occupation of the hundred and fifty dwelling to satisfy the relevant requirements of the policy in the development plan. With the link road comes an additional hundred houses we then move to phase three which includes the local center and further 130 dwellings and then we've got phase four on the far western side of the site which is a further 115 dwellings. We have here a plan showing the density of the development. We've got higher density in the red area that you can see on the plan on the presentation. We've then got areas of low density represented by the purple areas and the brown areas medium density development. We then have the proposals for drainage. We have an attenuation pond serving the first phase of development. We have a proposal to diver the existing watercourse and spring fed watercourse that crosses phase one land to be intercepted by the drainage infrastructure on site to discharge to his current outfall location with capacity building to deal with any exceedance of that outfall with a small what was a swell extended to be a shallow attenuation basin on that southern side. You'll note from the late representations received and the comments in the officers report that there's concerns about the assumptions made in terms of the amount of water that already crosses the site and will effectively be converted by this proposed development and whether or not we can be satisfied with any confidence that attenuating additional water in that location will not result in flooding elsewhere. And that remains a concern of officers. For the later phases of development, we've got what a rather large attenuation features in the area of open space serving this development. Sorry, let's go back a slide depicted here in blue. You've got basins one and two on the northern side of the site. Those basins are purposely constructed to deal with surface water flows from a catchment outside of the development site. So on higher ground. However, the issue we have with that is that it doesn't look at a range of design scenarios deal with climate change. And whilst the applicant has made the point that well it offers betterment in terms of flows already made the way onto the development site, and they're under no obligation to attenuate those flows, what we have to bear in mind is this is an engineered solution. And these water features will retain water. They'll fill up. Obviously climate change is with us. We're experiencing wetter conditions. There's concerns about drain down time of those basins. There's concerns about the succession flooding events that we have or storm events that we have. And the implications of that could have on those basins overflowing potentially and issues of seepage from one basin to another and how that may affect the attenuation basins, which are basins three and four, which will serve development flows. There remain significant concerns about the drainage proposals and the potential implications that they could have on flooding in the locality. That shows you an indicative master plan of the site. That indicates that potentially the development is achievable based on the amount and nature of development that's put forward. And then we come on to photographs of the site. We did visit the site and spent an awful lot of time discussing the proposals. Members appreciated where the areas of protected woodland were. We have got a number of heritage assets engaged. We'll set out in the officer's report. We've got Walled's farmhouse and we'll go back a couple of slides. Walled's farmhouse is difficult to pick out the detail here. It's positioned on the southern edge of the development site. And offices have expressed concerns about the setting of that building. And the applicant has considered that and provided a wave of, or indicated, a wave of open space and to provide a connection to the countryside that would have historically been associated with this farmhouse and forms parts of its setting. In terms of officers' assessments of this application, we do recognise that the site is currently allocated in the plan. And we recognise that the development plan sets out our objectives in respect to delivering housing and employment needs to meet the districts. Requirements and objectively assess needs in its evidence-based documents that underpin the local plan. However, we have to be satisfied that the development is deliverable despite being allocated in the plan and complies with all other policies in the development plan in order to achieve sustainable development. And that's where we have significant concerns for the reasons stated in the officer's report. It's unusual in that this application is an application for environmental impact assessment development, which is accompanied by an environmental statement. And that's in recognition that the development is likely to have environmental or potentially significant environmental effects. So we do need to be satisfied that they have been appropriately addressed. The application was registered by the Council on the 19th of November 2018. There's been various rounds of consultation. Members of the public may question, why is it taken this long, this application to be presented to members in this committee. There's a number of reasons for that. There's been a change in position in terms of the consultation response we received from Council T's. There was a flooding event in 2019. We had a viability argument presented to us and we never had conclusive comments from some of the Council T's. And we've tried to work proactively and constructively with the applicants trying to work through those. In terms of the officer recommendation, you'll note from the officer report that we've looked at the various chapters of the environmental statement. And we've concluded that certain elements of the application are potentially acceptable. But the reasons for refusal focus specifically on drainage. So the local planning authority not being satisfied that development can be delivered without resulting in flood risk on site elsewhere or presenting unacceptable risk to public safety. There's concerns about the translocation of habitat of principal importance within the attenuation features and basins on site. We don't know the final construction of these basins. Habitat of principal importance is separated out from other habitats as being of particular importance when we look at biodiversity and it's important that translocation of such habitat takes place to ensure there's no unacceptable loss of biodiversity. And we haven't got details of the final design of the basins. We don't know how deep they need to be to function safely. It satisfies that there wouldn't be an unacceptable risk to the public. It's deal with CPage and the requirement for the lining in the ponds, whether that's in part or in a comprehensive lining of the ponds. And whether in such circumstances habitat, the rush pastoring in this particular case can be successfully translocated. So we recommend a refusal for that reason. There's also concerns about the link road and the construction of that across valley feature and the engineering required. The engineering works associated with the construction of the basins themselves, what that might look like in landscape terms. We just haven't got enough information to be able to be fully satisfied. There won't be adverse impacts on the carriage and appearance of this part of Matlock. And the final reason relates to diviability and for reasons that I expressed when referring to the late representations at the beginning of my presentation. At this stage, I'll just quickly flick through photographs just for members benefit that didn't visit the site. I appreciate that these are just fields and it's difficult to understand where you're sitting in the site. If there's anything of relevance, I'll point that out. So this is the pine wood road accessing to the site on the far western side. You can see the woodland beyond, which is such an up high ground. I think that's a view of world's farmhouse in the distance. There's a close view, shows some boundary existing vegetation around the periphery of that property. It does show the close relationship of that heritage asset with the site itself. That's the property. That brings me to the end of the presentation. Happy to take questions at this stage. [inaudible] This referred to by many of the people who have made very good representations tonight is the highway issue. To my knowledge, we've no highways officer present that members here tonight can ask reasonable questions. I take it he was invited or she was invited. Yes, the local planning authority did invite or send an invite out to the local flood authority and it's the local highway authority to attend the meeting this evening. To be fair to them, they haven't had significant amount of notice and obviously we're going into these to break and they were unable to attend. Unfortunately, but they're satisfied that they've spelt their position out clearly in the advice that they've given to us. They wouldn't want to add anything to that other than to provide further information on why they've arrived at the decision that they have. Thank you, Chris, for that presentation. Members, we're now two and a half hours into the meeting. I do need to ask for proposals to extend the meeting to allow this matter to be concluded. Someone like to propose, Councillor Slack, Councillor Burton. At this stage in our proceedings, we take questions from committee members to officers and as is a customer, when I chair committee meetings up to three questions each, please, Councillor Slack, I think you were first. Thank you, Chair. Yes, I don't need any questions. One question, I don't know if you can answer it, Chris, but with climate change and we're having more rainfall all the time now and the water table under them in the top fields must be really rising. These springs will keep popping up our result of water, water being on the water table. There's more water now, isn't it? And I tell you, would you agree with that, or have you got evidence for that? Yes, climate change is something that has to be factored in when we're looking at sustainable urban drainage, so there's additional capacity built into drainage systems to deal with climate change. Yeah, thank you. The other questions are a lot of the speakers have answered, a lot of questions, so thank you. Councillor Lise. Thanks, Chair. Yeah, three questions. To what extent has the drainage investigation been carried out? As Cordrill has been put down, to establish the start of the ground, because one of the speakers did mention the different types of sandstone and moving the water from one place to another. Has any of that been done at all, Chris, for question one? And the other question, are there all three questions and we can answer more to you if that's right, is the attenuation ponds, who maintains those in the future? If we don't know what depth they may be at the moment, and if these aren't fenced in properly, they look to me like they could be very dangerous playgrounds. There's another question. And the other one is, I know it's not quite coming into this, the affordable housing situation, what is affordable? Would it be reworded into two-bedroomed properties which would have permitted developments rights removed rather than affordable? Okay, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Lise. Just dealing with the ground conditions question first, that remains a concern, and there's a difference of opinion between the applicant's drainage consultants and the council's drainage consultant on whether ground conditions should be something that are considered now, so we know how big these basins need to be, what their construction is, or whether that can be a condition of any planning permission that's granted. I think given where this site sits and the volume of these basins, that's not something in Office's view that can be set aside and looked at later on, is fairly fundamental to the acceptability of this development in Office's opinion. So we don't feel that without knowing what the underlying ground conditions are. The other comment that I think Councillor Slack may have mentioned, the hydrology and the complex hydrology on site. We know that Matlock's famous for it's hydropathy establishments, and there's a series of springs that are known to cross the site, and I'm pretty sure there'll be other underground features that the developer would come across when we're dealing with this matter. We need to know how that's going to impact potentially on these basins, their size and their function. So we don't have enough information and ground conditions dealing with issues of seepage. You'll see from the late representations that we don't feel that the applicant's strange consultant has satisfied us, or suitably addressed the concerns raised by our own strange consultant with regard to the exceedance of basins wanted to have a range of scenarios, including successive storm events that I mentioned earlier on, and also the effects of seepage and the implications on the base and serving and the power that flows. So that remains a concern of offices. In terms of the maintenance of these things, Wales has enacted a part of the Water Act, which creates an adopting authority, and in England that hasn't been enacted yet. So what we end up doing is agreeing management companies, and ultimately it'd be the management company's responsibility to maintenance of these attenuation features, and that itself is a concern in terms of having a robust maintenance regime in place throughout the lifetime of this development. I would just point out in terms of issue of safety, just to clarify, although basins in area terms are large, rather large, and that's shown on the plan that you can see on the presentation, maximum depth. There will be no deeper than two inches, so I think it's important to just bear that in mind, but there are obviously significant bodies of water when fall. In terms of affordable housing, I think just to clarify, there's no affordable housing being offered up, so in terms of what is affordable, nothing because it's all market housing that's proposed. Thank you, Chair. Chris, looking at the highway's report from August 2023, you could kind of paraphrase their position as they're discouraging car use by allowing congestion. Would you regard that as an unusual policy, and would you regard that as an acceptable policy? I don't want to comment on areas that are outside of my area of expertise, but from my understanding, the Highway Authority have looked at this application in detail, and there is a sustainable travel plan submitted with the application, and that proposes a series of measures, including concessions for public transport and respective proposed homeowners on the development, but also to existing residents to try and encourage people to use bus services, and to have a bus service actually operating through the site as an incentive to reduce travel from the site. Whether in reality people would use that service is something to, it's a matter of judgment for members to consider, but in considering highway matters, the Highway Authority would either have to be satisfied that the demand was unacceptable in highway safety terms, or the demand would result in severe impacts on the highway network, and we're not at that level in planning policy terms to be able to sustain a reason for a fizzle on such grounds. Can I have a supplementary then in that relationship? In view of the figures that they're predicting for some of the two key junctions, do you know what they would have to be in terms of queue length or overload to be severe? I can't, you know, confirm that, unfortunately. Councillor Shelly, please. Thank you, yes. Just following on from Councillor Dobs there, I've highlighted on exactly the same paragraph there, 5.53 in the report, where it states that this would not result in severe impact in terms of highways assessment. Now, I accept there isn't a highway's officer here tonight, and perhaps we're putting you in an invidious position. But throughout this process of five years or so of discussion on this, has there been any exchange with the highway's officers at the county over that question about severity, given the obvious nature of Cavendish Road particularly, and the comments that have been very validly raised by members of the audience here tonight? Yes, I've tried to be, as comprehensive as I could be in the report, in just setting out the various different periods of consultation that have been undertaken and the response that we've had from the different consultations. It's a clear, clear chronology of their position. Initially, they had raised some concerns about certain elements of the development, and there was a proposal and expectation that the crossing, the pedestrian crossing across Chesterfield Road would be moved south of the world's road junction, and that's because a lot of children travel along Chesterfield Road from lower down the hillside, on the southern side of Matbock, and if the junction there was to be more intensively moved, that presented a potential risk. So to have the crossing point in advance of that junction was deemed preferable. We then had comments from the highway authority that considered what wasn't, in their view, necessary, but then that was revisited following discussions with the residents and concerns that were expressed with the comments that were made. So they now considered that crossing point south of that junction would be necessary, but they've sort of spelt out their position, and they're happy from a higher safety perspective that the development is acceptable, and also that they're happy that, or satisfy the development wouldn't result in severe impacts on the highway network. I'm not sure that fully addresses the point, I mean I understand about the crossing, in terms of the volume of traffic, and this is obviously talking about the later phase of development here, particularly. I can see no reference in the report to the junction between, I think it's Wellington Street and Cavendish Road, which on our visit yesterday struck me as being particularly problematic. There's almost a gap between the travel and transport plans' attention to Crown Square and the very, very localised issues around the site itself. In your experience, is that in attention to the points, the pinch points, which link an otherwise landlocked site to the main highways network, something which the highways authority is often silent about? I think it depends on how you look at this. With, how would movement from Matlock, I think the design of the road, if you're travelling, or the layout of the developments and the road infrastructure, if you're travelling northwards, you would look to join Chesterfield Road and travel through the development site itself and not into Matlock. It's only when you're looking to move to travel south that you're likely to make use of the existing road network within the town. Previous speakers have mentioned that Cavendish Road wasn't designed really to take modern vehicles and to weigh traffic, and the high authority recognised that. Well, members will have noted here on the bus yesterday that vehicles currently park on Cavendish Drive, and the Cavendish Drive, sorry, that's actually born to Cavendish Road. And that does constrain the width of the carriage way, where, you know, for a large part of it, it's currently just only really capable of accommodating single-width traffic, and that is a concern. And the high authority has said that they will have to consider whether restrictions on the road are imposed to try and maintain two-way traffic in that location to try and alleviate some of those problems. And there's no set proposals there in terms of what's proposed and unknown at this stage. Councillor butthor. Hi, yes, thanks. This is one for Chris, you'll be surprised here. Ken Parker from the Civic Association said that we should have more reasons for refusal. And being heard, a lot of the things that were being said by the World Action Group and my continuing interest in this over the years, I thought I'd ask, is there a particular reason why we choose not to use landscape impact as one of the reasons for refusal in Section 8? If officers felt we could introduce more reasons for refusal, we would have put those to you. We've covered landscape in some detail in the officer's reports. Following the findings of the local planning inspector, when they looked at allocating this site in the current local plan, we just do not feel that a reason on landscape grounds would be defendable. We feel that the reasons we've presented to you are robust and defendable. And whilst there are concerns, I appreciate the public of raising a number of other issues, we have looked at those but consider them to be acceptable in planning terms. Thank you very much. Any questions from members who have not yet? No. Okay, now we now move into debate. Before we move into debate, can I remind members who arrived after the start of the meeting that they're not eligible to vote? They are eligible to take part in the debate, simply not to vote. Just to remind members that we have a revision to propose reason for refusal No. 4. The original recommendations are on page 147 of your report. We've had circulated a revised reason for refusal. Please, please bear that in mind. To enter into debate, I need a proposal. I'd like to vote for recommendation for refusal on the basis of the officer report from page 8 on the agenda, but as you've just intimated to members pertaining the late representations sheet, pages 5 to 6, and I'd like to reserve the right to wind up after the debate, please. Councillor Perksen? Councillor SAC? I'll check on that, Chair. Thank you. Contribution of other members, please. Councillor LIES. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, totally agree with the Councillor and Councillor SAC, with the recommendations set out by Chris Whitmore, totally in support of the officer recommendation. Thank you. Further contributions? You've already spoken, Peter. I'm afraid. I'm afraid you already spoken. Any further contributions? Councillor Franks? I totally support the recommendations with the amendment. As well as being very concerned about the water, I'm also a wee bit concerned about the level of contamination in parts of the side, the lead contamination. I think that's another reason as well to really consider refusing this application, because there's very insufficient evidence about how that will be dealt with as the work progresses on the site, other than removing it and placing it elsewhere, replacing the soil. Any further contributions? Councillor Burton, sorry. Councillor Dobb, did you want to speak? Very, very quickly, Chair. It picks up a comment by one of the contributors that I can't leave without commenting on the way in which the highways of authority are pinned so much on this proposed modal shift, because it strikes me there's a major flaw in what they suggest, so let's imagine that this gets built and we've got this little link road coming through and somehow getting along Cavendish Road, and the bus service runs fine. But if the bus service is running fine and the traffic is moving freely, then presumably the cars will also follow, and so you can't have one without the other. You can't shift people onto the bus without having the roads free, and if the roads are free, people will use their cars. This isn't a solution that they propose. Thank you, Chair. Councillor Burton, you wanted to come back then as a proposal. Chair, I'm wondering what my proposal was because of the outlined planning reasons that the bus service presented to us. Having said that, where are you, Laura Stevens? Laura, you're in passioned contribution tonight. We are going to make a difference. There are at least six of us around this table that were elected last May. We were not part of that group of people who foolishly in 2017. Councillor Burton, can I remind you we are in now a bit? Pre-election perders, so please avoid making any political comments. Right, OK. Going back to 1987, when I was on the Council, what was the great saviour Matlot people? What was it going to be for us, Corda Quarry? I was delighted to see the MP here tonight, and I really hope we could have a constructive partnership with Sarah Dines because surely it's not without wit and ability. We're constantly told that because of substances and things, it's totally uneconomically impossible to develop that brownfield area for Matlot. That's the sort of place that we should have, hopefully, been tonight, encouraging development for not these green fields. So I genuinely hope that as and when this prompt services and appeal, that the MP's legal abilities will help and assist as in fighting and protecting. I was the other week up Salter's Lane on the path towards Matlot, and when you look at our precious landscape, there's a hell of a lot, isn't the state that we're going to lose. So, Chair, thank you for allowing me to speak, and I so move the notice of motion. You've already spoken. Have you already spoken, Roger? Yes, I have a question. A lot of this there we're going to talk about. Sorry, Roger, have you spoken? Roger, you haven't spoken yet. I'll allow you to speak. OK, thank you. I'm afraid our rules... I will say that members can only speak once during a debate. Roger, thank you. I'll be brief, Chair. Yeah, flooding is one of the main issues. I've worked for the Environment Agency for many years, and I've seen major floods in Matlot. I've seen most of the place where we nearly lost it at times. So, flooding is the big issue, and this will contribute to flooding. I've heard the officer have got it exactly right. It will contribute to flooding, and if we consist with this going with these, the holding tanks will only work. Oh, water, so long. They won't go continuously. Oh, water. And the water will go straight down. Straight down, bently broke, to nose to the place where some water will go down directly into Matlot. And it will have a catastrophic... Oh, Matlot, eventually. So, we can't really... The officer have got this right. We can't go directly with this. So, thank you, Chair. Thank you. Sorry if I was too hard on you. Oh, yeah. Right. Yes. Councillor SRILL. Thank you, Chair. I'd like to pay tribute to everyone here tonight, really, because we've heard a compelling case with admittedly one person giving the opposite view. But they're paid to do this, and you folk have had to put up with this for... I mean, it's five and a half years, but in practice, if you look at it, and the impact of the local plan process, it's getting on for ten years, and that's an unacceptable impact of government policy of whatever shade, which I'm not making a particular point there, though some others may do. The applicants say that they're not responsible for the existing surface water, and whilst that's technically true, it's always been there. It doesn't mean to say that the application shouldn't bear that in effect, and whilst there is obviously attenuation ponds, I think what strikes me here is that throughout the report, which is a very good report, and I'm concerned about criticism of officers, again, throughout the report, we've been presented really with a web of confusion and uncertainty from the statutory bodies. They change their views, and it almost seems that that might be, you could say it's under pressure from the applicants, that's happening. Now, it's quite right that you change your views when evidence is presented, which is compelling evidence and which is scientifically proven. But tonight, we're having to make a decision on the basis of uncertain evidence, but where the risk is extreme, we've heard references to the risk to life and property here. It's not very often that as a planning committee, we get those kind of threats put over us. And for that reason alone, I think it would be a dereliction of our duty to our communities, the existing communities as well as future ones, if we didn't bear the seriousness of that in mind. And for that reason, I know which way I will be voting. I'd just like to say, really, the effort that the applicant has put into this probably means that this is not, unfortunately, the last time we will see this come before us. It might be in a different shape or form. I would just appeal to developers like William Davis to work more closely with the council. One of the speakers tonight referred very clearly to Brownfield sites, which are available for development. And we know what those are. We only have to think about things like Masson Mill, for example. Those are the opportunity, which I'm sure the council would like to work with developers in the future to deliver. Those are the kind of places that we should be looking at. All right, then. I'm now going to move to the vote. Now, I'll all members clear on the recommendations before us. Can I show all those in favour of the recommendations to refuse? Please show. My colleagues can pay abstentions, anyone against? Councillor WILK, who has not able to vote because he arrived after the start of the meeting. That is, therefore, unanimous, and the application is refused. Just before we all make our way home, can I please thank everyone that's both the applicant and those who didn't support the application for the constructive approach to this evening meeting. I think that's been very helpful to us all. Now, members of the Planning Committee, Chris Rittmore, our development manager, presented the application first this evening, and this is, in fact, his last day at work with Dale's District Council after 15 years of working with us and providing expert advice to successive Planning Committees, he's moving on to Parash's new. Parash is not necessarily the right word, because he's moving to Bolsova. So, I'm sure members would join with me in wishing Chris the very best for his future career. [Applause] Thank you, Chris. [Applause] Thank you, Chris. [Applause] We'll have a safe journey home. [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause]