Inspector to consider whether to give a Chesterfield Waterside Regeneration housing scheme the go-ahead after Public Inquiry

Woodall Homes Ltd, of Chesterfield, appealed for a Public Inquiry after Chesterfield Borough Council’s planning committee had originally left the developers’ application for the scheme “non-determined” but following a seemingly resolved dispute that Woodall Homes could not viably help to fund a new £1.7m bridge the committee indicated it was “minded” to approve the application.

However, the final decision on the planning application to demolish buildings on the brownfield site on Brimington Road, Chesterfield, and to build 83 dwellings, 41 apartments, and 20 flats over garages with ground floor commercial units and landscaping now lies with the Inspector Thomas Hatfield after the one-day Public Inquiry on Tuesday, September 19.

The council has made a number of requests from the developers as part of a Section 106 agreement including: There should still be improvements to off-site footpaths and an on-site open space should be provided; The developers should also provide financial updates and a later financial assessment to show any surplus; And that a share of any surplus should be contributed to the council for improvements to Brewery Street and Brimington Road; And that a parcel of land should be safeguarded for any possible, future bridge for at least ten years.

But the developers’ legal representative Isabella Buono said: “Unusually, for an appeal like this one, the parties agree that planning permission should be granted.

“That’s because on July 5, 2023, the council’s planning committee unanimously resolved that it would have been minded to approve the application subject to three issues being addressed in a Section 106 agreement.

“Since then, the appellant has worked proactively with the council to translate the committee’s requests into a draft agreement. It’s that agreement which we are primarily concerned [with] today.”

Woodall Homes is challenging whether the requested requirements comply with Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and it is arguing that these should “fall away” as obligations upon the developer.

The proposed 2.59 hectare site is part of the council’s overall Chesterfield Waterside Regeneration plans to support jobs, restore the canal and river and to improve access with footpaths and a cycle network.

James Corbett Butcher, representing the council, said: “Whilst this is an application against non-determination, the council has acted proactively throughout to ensure that this site is well-planned, well-integrated into the larger Waterside Site and that it makes an appropriate contribution to wider site infrastructure if that is identified as viable.”

Mr Butcher argued that all the “obligations” that have been negotiated are compliant with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.

He added: “The removal of any obligation would therefore not be appropriate. Planning permission should be granted subject to this agreed Section 106 Agreement in full.”

Lisa Hopkinson, of Transition Chesterfield, also argued that the developers should make a financial contribution towards accessibility to make sure this site is suitable for walking and cycling around.

Planners had originally flagged-up the need to improve footpaths around the site and the need for a new, replacement bridge between Riverside East and the Waterfront areas.

They had argued that even though the paths and proposed bridge were not inside the development site area they were part of the council’s masterplan requiring access, connectivity, and open space.

Planners subsequently requested the developers help provide funding towards an improved pedestrian riverside footpath and cycle route alongside Riverside Park, improved secondary pedestrian streets connecting Brimington Road with the riverside, and towards a new, upgraded £1.7m pedestrian bridge across the River Rother.

They had argued Woodall Homes should pay £1.275m towards the cost of any new bridge and that path improvements could cost as much as £131,750.

However, Woodall Homes argued during the planning committee meeting in July that it cannot be responsible for matters beyond its site boundary and that to invest in additional work would not be financially viable and would leave a deficit.

And the planning committee subsequently voted unanimously in July that it was ‘minded’ to approve the application with a possible proposal that some funding might be sought at a later stage to contribute towards a bridge.

In addition, Woodall Homes Planning Director Darren Abbott had said at the committee meeting in July the developers had provided connections to the site and they may be able to help in some way with future plans for improved paths and a new bridge.

Inspector Thomas Hatfield, who was appointed by the Secretary of State to oversee and decide upon the public inquiry, explained he was addressing the issue of whether the development’s accessibility arrangements are compliant with planning policy for the proposed site.

Mr Hatfield formally closed the Public Inquiry and stated that his findings would be announced on October 26.