Derbyshire planners reject Glossop housing scheme on greenfield land to protect landscape

Council planners have rejected a housing scheme for 51 properties on greenfield land in Derbyshire over concerns that it would harm the landscape, mean a loss of trees and that it would not provide an appropriate range of housing types and sizes with a bridleway.

High Peak Borough Council’s Development Control Committee refused Westshield’s planning application at a meeting on December 9, at The Arts Centre, at the Pavilion Gardens, in Buxton, for the scheme on a 1.1 hectare greenfield site off Cottage Lane, at Gamesley, Glossop, for a mix of one bedroom flats and two and three bedroom houses.

Despite the prospect of a 100per cent affordable housing scheme, the application faced numerous concerns about increased traffic, sufficient infrastructure and objections also included the loss of woodland, and an inappropriate range of housing types without a bridleway link.

A council spokesperson stated: “Clearly, the wholesale loss of trees and woodland onsite and its replacement with an unsympathetic dense urban residential layout, together with the potential loss and, or deterioration of ancient woodland nearby would lead to a significant adverse impact on the woodland character of the area.”

It was also stated in a council report that overall the scheme would lead to a prominent intrusion into the countryside and have a significant adverse impact on its character.

The public raised a number of concerns which were considered by the committee including a lack of amenities and infrastructure, fears of urban sprawl in a rural area, increased traffic, road safety and access and the loss of greenland and wildlife and that the site falls on former mining works deemed to be of high risk by the Coal Authority.

High Peak Borough Council’s Arboricultural Consultant objected to the scheme on the grounds that the proposals will lead to the loss of 38 trees, two groups of trees, three hedges and a woodland.

Derbyshire police also objected on the grounds of public safety concerns with a proposed realigned path with reduced sight lines.

The Trans Pennine Trail National Office and sustainable transport charity Sustrans objected to the scheme after they had sought a bridleway connection on the path running along the east of the site due to the lack of safe cycling routes.

However, Derbyshire County Council’s highways authority had raised no objections to the scheme because they felt there would not be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or a severe impact on congestion.

Glossop and District Heritage Trust also highlighted that a path running through the site may fall along a suspected former Roman road.

Although, County Archaeology raised no objections on the condition that an investigation could be undertaken before any development.

But Cllrs Anthony Mckeown and Edward Sidall urged the committee to refuse the planning application with concerns about design issues, the loss of trees and light, and the impact on the area’s landscape.

And Derbyshire Wildlife Trust also stated that insufficient survey work had been carried out for an application which proposes the destruction of priority habitat woodland and it also argued the impact to protected species had not been fully determined.

Subsequently, the development committee refused planning permission on the grounds the scheme would cause significant landscape effects and constituted a poor design which failed to respond to the loss of trees and woodland.

A council spokesperson added: “The proposed development would cause significant landscape and visual effects therefore detracting from the wooded character and appearance of the local area.”

The committee also refused the scheme because it was felt that it would result in unwanted shading and that it would not provide an appropriate range of housing types and sizes or an appropriate bridleway.

However, the committee agreed to delegate authority to the Chair and Head of the council’s Development Service to consider the refusal again if necessary subject to any outstanding comments.