Chesterfield Road Parish

8/6/2019 Chesterfield Road Parish

1/15

APPLICATION REF: 09/00370/OUTMAJ Residential and CommercialDevelopment (Business, Industrial and Warehousing, Class B1, B2 and B8(including new roundabout and associated roads at rear of 16 124 and southwest of 124 and between Brickyard Farm and Barlborough Links, ChesterfieldRoad, Barlborough.

Barlborough Parish Council wishes to object to the above proposal for the reasons

set out in this Statement, Part A of which is written by K. A. Burley of Ken Burley &

Associates and Part B by M. Longden of L.D.A. (Civils & Transportation) Ltd.

PART A the Parish Council has a number of concerns about the proposal with

respect to planning policy, existing residential land supply, unsuitability of the site for

residential development, air quality, existing proposals for Affordable/Social Housing

and Section 106 considerations.

1. Planning Policy: the application site is not designated for residential orcommercial development. The site is actually 2 separate parcels of land, both

of which are outside the settlement framework for Barlborough in the Adopted

Bolsover District Local Plan (2000). The southernmost area of land within the

northern parcel of land is Green Belt and is shown on the indicative plan as

proposed for public open space. The Planning and Compensation Act 2004

clearly says that decisions affecting planning applications should normally

accord with the Development Plan unless there are material considerations

which suggest otherwise. Those considerations can include an out of date

Development Plan and/or insufficient land allocated for residential and other

development. The question of residential land availability will be looked at in

further detail below, However, the Parish Council feels that there is an

adequate supply particularly of residential land and that being the case, there

is no justification for prejudicing the Local Development Framework process

by granting permission for development on land which is simply not allocated

for such development. While it is true that the current District Local Plan is to

be replaced by a Local Development Framework, there is no justification for a

gratuitous grant of permission as is being sought here since it would patently

undermine the Local Development Framework process.

2. Residential Land Supply: according to the Bolsover District Council

Assessment of Five Year Supply of Deliverable Sites for Housing, the housing

need requirement for the period 1 April 2008 31 March 2013 is for 1814

dwellings; this compares with a current housing land supply of 1880 dwellings

Ken Burley, BA (Econ), Dip.TP., MRTPI, MCMI, IHBC 1


2/15

plots and Bolsover District Council, therefore, has an adequate 5 year supply

of residential land. There is certainly no justification for an additional housing

land allocation which would breach planning policy as set out in the Bolsover

District Local Plan. Even if the longer timescale of the East Midlands Regional

Plan 2009 is taken into account, the Policy Northern Sub Regional StrategySRS 1 does not identify Barlborough as a settlement where significant levels

of growth are identified; it is not defined as a Sub Regional Centre or other

area where significant levels of development would be justified and in terms of

this policy therefore the two parcels of land comprising the application site

would be considered as outside the areas mentioned above. Quite the reverse

in fact as, according to SRS 1, new development in Barlborough should be

restricted to small scale development to meet local needs and be of a scaleand type necessary to secure and service a mixed and balanced community.

3. In terms of employment, policy support for development of the application site

in the East Midlands Regional Plan 2009 is not clear either; in SRS 3 Sub

Regional Employment Regeneration Priorities although land around

Barlborough is referred to, there is emphasis on Clowne, Whitwell and

Creswell as locations to assist growth and regeneration objectives of the

regional strategy. It is also the case that only part of the southern parcel of

land appears to be within Site Bo10 which is delineated in the Northern Sub

Region Employment Land Review as possibly contributing to the employment

land needs of the Bolsover District.

4. The Parish Council feels strongly therefore that there is little planning policy

support for developing the application site for residential and/or employment

use and the application should accordingly be refused in accordance with the

2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act as it does not conform with the

Bolsover District Local Plan and is largely inconsistent with the East Midlands

Regional Plan.

5. Suitability of the application site for residential development: although the

Parish Council feels strongly that the application should be refused on

planning policy grounds, it is nevertheless appropriate to look at the inherent

suitability of the part of the application site which is adjacent to the M1



3/15

motorway. A Noise Impact Assessment has been produced by the applicants

noise consultants, RandTech Consulting. Government advice on noise and

residential development proposals is clear; planning permission should not

normally be granted for sites where traffic noise is likely to cause a significant

nuisance (defined as Category C). The RandTech Consulting Report hasidentified noise levels for day time (07.00 to 23.00) of 69.7 decibels, that is at

the upper end of Category C (72 decibels). While noise protection measures

such as bunds and double or triple glazing can reduce the impact of traffic

noise within dwellings, the residential environment of sites hard up against the

motorway can never be described as satisfactory, hence the governments

guidance that planning permission should not normally be granted for

Category C sites. This guidance applies particularly where there arealternative residential sites which are not so heavily impacted upon by

highway noise. At a time when the Bolsover Local Development Framework is

under preparation, alternative sites should, in the interests of sustainability, be

sought where environmental conditions are much better than at the site being

proposed by the applicant. It is also the case that the proposed M1 widening

programme may well result in increased traffic and associated noise levels

directly adjacent to the application site. It follows, therefore, that the site,

which is already unsatisfactory from a noise level point of view and where, in

terms of government guidance, planning permission should not normally be

granted, is likely to experience even higher noise nuisance than at present.

The time scale of up to 2026 for both the East Midlands Regional Plan and the

Local Development Framework surely allows for better residential sites than

this one to be identified.

6. Air Quality: it is axiomatic that a residential site adjacent to a very busy

motorway will experience poor air quality. An Air Quality Screening

Assessment, undertaken by Scott Wilson and Partners on behalf of the

applicants, identifies a significant air pollution issue and furthermore, they

advise that if outline permission were granted on the application site, more

detailed studies would be necessary, especially if land immediately adjacent to

the M1 carriageway were to be developed for housing. The fact that the Scott

Wilson report states that the 150 houses proposed on the application site

would not have any significant effect on current air quality is blindingly



4/15

obvious. Compliance with government targets for reduction of emissions will,

inevitably, mean that domestic heating is likely in the future to have less effect

on air quality. The issue affecting the application site is pollution derived from

motorway traffic. However, it is also the case that the applicants propose a

mixed development including not just housing but also classes B1 Business,B2 Industry and B8 Warehousing. Classes B2 and B8 in particular are likely to

produce adverse emissions which will exacerbate air quality problems at this

site.

7. Affordable/Social Housing: it is being claimed that the proposed residential

development will include affordable housing (up to 50 such units are put

forward in the Section 106 Draft agreement) and this therefore strengthens thecase for granting permission to develop a site in conflict with the Development

Plan. However, it is the case that any site over the threshold defined by the

district planning authority, will have to contribute to the provision of

affordable/social housing in the local area. The Bolsover District Council

document Supplementary Planning Guidance Affordable Housing, requires

new developments of over 25 houses to provide social housing in some form

and at a scale proportionate to local housing needs as defined in a local

housing study and usually in relation to the size of the housing development

proposed. The 5 year housing supply is intended to deliver not only private

housing but also to meet the needs for social housing within the District. It

does not add weight to the argument that the application site should be

developed for housing by saying that the site will contribute some proportion of

affordable housing; any site above 25 units will be required to make a

contribution in line with the District Councils policies and government

guidance. Again, it follows, therefore, that the suggestion that 50 homes for

social housing justifies prejudicing and pre-empting the Local Development

Framework process, does not stand up to scrutiny.

8. Section 106 considerations: the Section 106 Circular is very clear in saying

that planning permissions should not be bought by a developer offering some

inducement to the local planning authority; in other words, the offer of, say, an

all weather-pitch as part of a residential development, should not be used as

an instrument to override basic planning policy. A proposal for residential



5/15

development should, therefore, be judged in accordance with planning policy

and government guidance; if it is compatible with development plan

allocations, then Section 106 planning gain can certainly be used to address

issues created or added to by the development proposal. It is also the case

that discussions about a Section 106 agreement should involve the localcommunity, including, where possible, the local Parish Council. In this

particular instance, several of the Section106 proposals deal with issues

created by the proposed development itself rather than existing community

matters. For example, existing education provision at the primary school is

already stretched; additional demand for school places generated from the

new housing will simply add to the demand which already exists within

Barlborough. Furthermore, the existing primary school site has very limitedroom to expand anyway and an onsite solution would not be easy.



6/15

Part B comments by M. Longden of L.D.A. (Civils & Transportation) Ltd I have

acquired the transport and travel data submitted as part of the application and would

comment as follows:

1. GENERAL

1.1The proposed development is to consist of mixed-use of residential, business and

employment land-uses. Residential development will take place to the West of

(A619) Chesterfield Road and the business/employment development to the East.

1.2The proposed sites will be accessed from a combined roundabout junction to be

constructed on Chesterfield Road.

1.3The internal infrastructure of both sites is based upon a single lane carriageway

Cul-de-Sac. There is no secondary means of access to the

business/employment development and only an emergency access for the

residential development.

1.4In the case of the residential development which will be a linear development

between the motorway and the ribbon of existing residential development along

the (A619) Chesterfield Road will be extremely long.

1.5The requirement therefore for an emergency access is essential. In this case the

emergency access proposed in the Northeast corner of the site will link on to the

A6135 M1 Motorway approach.

1.6This section of the A6135 is a dual carriageway and a principal arterial route

within the regional highway network. To utilise the A6135 as an emergency

access route for the residential development would have a significant detrimental

impact on the entire highway network at this location.

2. TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT



7/15

2.1 The Transport Assessment (TA) has incorporated traffic generation from

committed development locally - as in the Steetley Regeneration

Assessment.

2.2 Similarly, the TA for this application allows for the Steetley Regeneration

Development and reference should be made back to this particular TA when it

is concluded with the Highways Agency and the various County Councils as it

will have a significant impact on the junctions and sections of public highway

referred to in this application i.e. ii, & iii, below.

2.3 The junctions considered in the Transport Assessment (Final June 2009)incorporates the following: -

i. Proposed site access

ii. The A616 (A619 Roundabout)

iii. The M1 (Junction 30)

2.4 From the distribution tables provided in the report, there will be an additional

33 vehicles and 34 vehicles respectively during the AM and PM peak hour

periods on the A619 with a peak daily trip generation for the overall

development being 546 (AM) and 555 (PM).

3. FRAMEWORK TRAVEL PLAN

3.1 The Transport Assessment is supported by a Travel Plan; to promote

alternative travel options other than private car and to mitigate, to some

extent, the traffic generation figures utilised in the T.A.

3.2 The report suggests a 10% modal shift away from the private car for the

employee population and a 5% modal shift away from the private car for the

proposed resident population.

3.3Consequently there will be corresponding increases in more sustainable travel

options i.e. 1). Public Transport - Employees 0.9%, Residents 0.5%, 2).



8/15

Cycling Employees 2.5%, Residents 1.3%, 3). Walking Employees 4%,

Residents 1.9%.

3.4The TP indicates that facilities within Barlborough will be utilised to reduce car-

usage and achieve the modal share targets, i.e., schools.

3.5The TP indicates established walking and cycling routes to Barlborough village

and beyond will further support the proposed development in this case.

4. SUMMARY

4.1 TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT

4.1.1 The conclusion of the Transport Assessment is that there will need to be some

mitigation works undertaken to the A616/A619 Roundabout. This has been

proposed as partial traffic signal control of the junction by providing entry arm

signalisation from Chesterfield Road (Northbound approach).

4.1.2 Derbyshire County Council are not in entire agreement with this proposal and

therefore some S.106 Agreement may be proposed for a commuted sum

payment to promote a more comprehensive improvement of this junction in

the future.

4.1.3 The T.A has considered traffic generation at the junctions specified above

and has incorporated PIA statistics for them.

4.1.4 The conclusion (Refer to Section 7.3 of the assessments) is that the

A616/A619 Roundabout junction exceeds capacity limits in both the AM and

PM peak hours and that this junction is a bottleneck in the local highway

network.

4.1.5 Similar to the Steetley Regeneration T.A, the approaches to the junctions

along the A619 have been shown to be at capacity or above, but no reference

has been made to the operational characteristics of this highway link and its

usefulness to the residents of Barlborough.



9/15

4.1.6 There are no accident statistics presented for the highway links between the

proposed developments and Barlborough, particularly associated with the

(A619) Chesterfield Road and the (A616) Oxcroft Way.

4.2 TRAVEL PLAN

4.2.1 The T.P puts reliance upon the connectivity of the residential development

with employment locally and also with the established centre of Barlborough.

4.1.2 The T.P recommends core measures that will reduce private car usage and

promote sustainable travel options; increasing cycling, walking and publictransport year on year.

4.1.3 The T.P relies upon established cycling and pedestrian routes and public

service corridors to achieve the modal changes.

4.1.4 The T.P acknowledges that these links incorporate un-controlled pedestrian

crossings of the major arterial corridors that divide the various residential

blocks in the Barlborough conurbation.

5 FINDINGS

5.1The T.A and T.P provide essential information on the existing and future

performance of the local highway network to support additional traffic generation

and provide an inclusive network of sustainable travel options that will serve the

increased residential population of Barlborough.

5.2The TA acknowledges the significance of the local highway network in the

national, regional and local context.

5.3It acknowledges the significant development that has occurred in the surrounding

area in the past 5-10 years and the impact that this has had on Barlborough

generally.



10/15

5.4The TA proposes mitigation works to negate the impact of the proposed mixed-

use development on the local highway network but it is considered that these

are premature as the outcome of the Steetley Regeneration application has not

yet been resolved and the mitigation works for this development may

considerably affect the junctions being considered in this TA.

5.5The TP promotes inclusivity and the quality of the highway network to serve not

only the proposed population of the new developments but the wider community

of Barlborough. On these matters I am minded to refer to statements provided by

a resident and in this case a member of Barlborough Parish Council as follows: -

We remain very concerned about additional development which will result infurther traffic loading of the junction with the M1 and the roads through

Barlborough. The A616/A619/A6135 roundabout junction (Treble Bob

roundabout) is currently operating at 0.85 threshold of practical capacity

during the peak periods of operation i. Consequently, there is congestion and

delay. The transport assessment by Scott Wilson only includes committed

developments identified by Derbyshire County Council in their traffic estimates

and these are the Steetley regeneration development, Van Dyk hotel and

garden centre and Barlborough Links. It does not incorporate the plans to

develop North Clowne (as part of the Local Development Framework) which

includes: 1) the provision for 1300 houses in Clowne North (land north of

Creswell Road); 2) the extension of the Clowne Employment Growth Zone (to

incorporate Barlborough Links) by 30 hectares of land north of Clowne), for

mixed use live and work development. Access will be via Barlborough at the

A616/A619/A6135 roundabout junction (Treble Bob roundabout). The

infrastructure is wholly inadequate. This cannot just be ignored. The plans to

re-engineer the Treble Bob roundabout with 3 lanes and partial signalisation

(which Derbyshire County Council does not support) will not solve the

fundamental problems that pedestrians have trying to move around the village.

It does not matter how many transport or travel plans are produced for

planning applications in this village, until someone takes the time to walk

around the village and experience the problems first hand that people have

trying to cross the roads on the A616/A619/A6135 roundabout junction, then



11/15

documents like the Travel Plan are purely a paper exercise to meet the

requirements of the planning process. For example:

i. People choose to drive their children to McDonalds because they cannot

safely cross Oxcroft Way onto Chesterfield Road. Vehicles approach the

Oxcroft Way exit at speed. From the bottom of Hancocks Hill vehicles will

be indicating left, but the pedestrian doesnt know which left they are

taking they could be going down Slayley View Road, Oxcroft Way or

Chesterfield Road. Therefore, pedestrians have to wait until there is a gap

in the traffic as they cannot risk starting to cross not knowing which exit the

vehicle is going to take. Because of the constant traffic, gaps in the traffic

are few and far between. Once there is a gap, they can cross to the middle

of the road, but would be unable to get all the way across. The central

reservation is not wide enough for pedestrians to stand there safely and

cannot accommodate pushchairs or mobility scooters. The approaching

traffic divides into two lanes, further obscuring the pedestrians view across

the road. If you are trying to cross with a pushchair and/or children, it is just

about impossible without risking the safety of yourself and that of your

children. For those who are visually impaired, elderly or have mobility

problems the problems are exacerbated where poor hearing, eyesight

impairs their decision making processes and reaction times. This is one of

the main walking routes highlighted in the Travel Plan as linking the

proposed housing and employment development with the rest of

Barlborough village and Clowne.

We met with Derbyshire County Council highways officers in 2005 to

discuss a number of issues with them, one of which was crossing Oxcroft

Way. The highways officers would not stand on the kerbside of Oxcroft

Way because they felt it were too dangerous (and traffic levels have

increased significantly since then). However, this is still classed as one of

the main walking access routes to the rest of the village. In their feedback

following the meeting, we were told that the road was not wide enough to

increase the size of the central reservation. Neither could any kind of

crossing be considered because of the speed of the road and the stopping

distances required.



12/15

ii. Crossing Tallys End on foot is equally as difficult. The curvature and

40mph speed limit of Chesterfield Road means that traffic turning left onto

Tallys End does so at speed. However, pedestrians crossing Tallys End

are obscured from view until the vehicle has turned. This makes it very

dangerous to cross at this point despite the fact that this is the designatedcrossing point because of the drop kerbs. The above examples are merely

illustrative and are not exhaustive of the pedestrian/traffic problems in the

village.

We raised these issues with the developer at the open day at the Ibis

Hotel. He said he couldnt be expected to solve all Barlboroughs problems

regarding the roads and footpaths, and we would agree. However, neither

can it be argued, therefore, in the Travel Plan that residents and

employees of the proposed developments can walk and cycle easily

around the village, when clearly there are major physical barriers to them

doing so. These barriers significantly affect the existing population.

The Travel Plan should take into account the needs of the local people. A

thorough access assessment should be carried out with different

population groups parents with children, hearing and visually impaired,

able bodied, mobility scooters etc. By carrying out an access study the real

obstacles that people face can be identified and addressed. Without this,

the Travel Plan is ineffective and the new housing and commercial

development will be physically isolated from the rest of the village.

In addition, the residential area is essentially separated from the other

residential areas of Barlborough by two major roads that will act as a

barrier to use of the public open space by the wider community due to the

lack of formal crossings. There are no obvious proposals to address this

isolation by creating formal pedestrian or cycle links to existing open

spaces within Barlborough, despite the development of green infrastructure

being one of the key design objectives of the development. We can see

little evidence that this will be adequately addressed.

5.6 In conclusion I recommend that the matters referred to in section 7.3

Potential Measures of the Travel Plan are considered in detail at this time: -



13/15

i. PUBLIC TRANSPORT Liaise with the public transport operators to

establish the suitability of pedestrian links to existing service points.

ii. WALKING Promote safer walking routes to the site linked to

measures being taken on general safety.- Conduct detailed pedestrian surveys to identify any problems with

the walking network.

iii. CYCLING Conduct detailed cycling surveys to identify problems with

the cycling network.

CONCLUSIONS

The Parish Council objects to application 09/00370/OUTMAJ for planning

permission for residential and commercial development including a new



14/15

roundabout and associated roads at rear of 16 to 124 and south west of 124

and between Brickyard Farm and Barlborough Links, Chesterfield Road,

Barlborough for the following reasons:

i. Planning policy the application site is not allocated for suchdevelopment in the current Development Plan and the application

should therefore be refused in accordance with the 2004 Planning and

Compulsory Purchase Act.

ii. Residential Land Supply is sufficient to meet the requirements of PPS 3

regarding a 5 year housing land supply and there are no overriding

circumstances to depart from the Development Plan.

iii. Approving the current application would clearly pre-empt the

preparation of the Bolsover Local Development Framework.

iv. The application site is unsuitable for residential development because

high noise levels generated by motorway traffic from the M1 mean the

site is classified as Category C and according to government guidance

should not be used for housing.

v. Air quality similarly is very unsatisfactory because of traffic emissions

from the M1 Motorway.

vi. Significant traffic and transportation implications have not been

adequately addressed by the applicants.

vii. Affordable Housing provision is required on any site of 25 or more

dwellings and should not be used to justify allocating a site for

development which is contrary to the Development Plan.

viii. Section 106 benefits should not be used to justify a proposal which is

unacceptable on planning grounds.



15/15

iDerbyshire County Council 8th October 2008http://planning.bolsover.gov.uk:8080/PlanApp/jsp/RDgetAllAppDocs.jsp?PlanningApplicationNumber=08/00401/OUTMAJ
http://planning.bolsover.gov.uk:8080/PlanApp/jsp/RDgetAllAppDocs.jsp?PlanningApplicationNumber=08/00401/OUTMAJhttp://planning.bolsover.gov.uk:8080/PlanApp/jsp/RDgetAllAppDocs.jsp?PlanningApplicationNumber=08/00401/OUTMAJhttp://planning.bolsover.gov.uk:8080/PlanApp/jsp/RDgetAllAppDocs.jsp?PlanningApplicationNumber=08/00401/OUTMAJhttp://planning.bolsover.gov.uk:8080/PlanApp/jsp/RDgetAllAppDocs.jsp?PlanningApplicationNumber=08/00401/OUTMAJ

Chesterfield Road Parish

Documents

Transcript of Chesterfield Road Parish