Chesterfield Borough Council blocks plans for a new children's home

Chesterfield Borough Council’s planning committee refused Dr Catherine Kemp’s planning application for an assessment centre and children’s home to be built on the site of a former health centre on St Philip’s Drive, in Hasland, Chesterfield, after they agreed that it would not fit with the character of the neighbourhood which includes many bungalows.

Campaigner Claire Scarborough, of St Philip’s Drive, told the packed meeting on Monday, April 15: “Myself and other residents struggle to understand how the proposal will benefit Hasland and our community as a whole as the developers say it will.”

She added: “St Philip’s Drive has remained with low-level buildings for nearly 50 years and a two-storey building not only compromises this but it is out of character.”

Ms Scarborough argued the children’s home would introduce a two-storey building into an area characterised by bungalows and this would clash with the appearance of the area.

The planning application site currently includes a single storey L-shaped building on the corner of St Philips Drive and Swanbourne Close surrounded by bungalows and plans included ground and first floor extensions and alterations to the access areas and two car parking areas.

Derbyshire County Council’s Highways Authority raised no objections to the planning application and environmental health officers made no adverse comments but 84 objections were received from 62 individuals as well as from Chesterfield Borough ward member for Hasland, Cllr Amanda Serjeant.

Objections to the planning application included that it would pose an ‘eye sore’, and other concerns included highway safety, inadequate parking, its over-development and its overlooking nature as well as worries about bin provision.

Cllr Serjeant, who opposed the development on the grounds of a potential negative impact on the character and nature of the area, told the meeting: “The residents are here today not to object because they object to any development but because they object to this development because of the nature and character.”

She added that the proposed site was close to boundaries, would dominate the street scene, posed an increase in traffic safety problems and its two-storey extension would overlook bungalow homes. Cllr Serjeant also said: “As I met with residents and talked through these issues I was nearly taken out myself by speeding cars.”

Campaigner Paul Hills, of St Philips Drive, also argued that the development would have a ‘dramatic impact on the neighbourhood’ and that access from one of the proposed car park areas would be into a dangerous blind bend with poor visibility and the two-storey extension would overlook nearby bungalows.

Director David Peck, of planning company P&DG, which represents the applicant, argued it is sometimes said that a society can be judged on how it judges its weakest and most vulnerable members and this proposal is aimed at making children’s lives better.

He added the plans would not result in an impact on highway safety and that separation distances and the height of the development accords with boundaries and the surrounding area is not just characterised by bungalows.

However, planning committee member, Cllr Kate Caulfield, said: “My initial thoughts in looking at this was that it was to be a provision for children in need and therefore a benefit to society.

“But when we showed the picture of the double-storey – and the photo of it really was quite startling – and then we have the discussion about parking, I do not think we can look at the benefits for the children against the disadvantages of those who live there. As much as I would like to see such a facility I do not see how we can approve this application.”

Cllr Jacqueline Ridgway said if the proposed building had remained on one level she would probably have opposed the officers’ recommendations to refuse the planning application and given the scheme the green light.

And Cllr Stuart Brittain added that the council was torn between the need for a children’s centre and the effect it would have on residents but he felt the planning application should be refused.

Cllr Maureen Davenport said: “This building does stand out in an area of bungalows and low level buildings. I think it is regretful that the street scene is going to be two main car parks. Car parks are usually around the back of buildings and these are going to be on the street side.

“I also think what is going to be happening here is going to be very different from the surgery, in that the surgery was specifically during the day but this is going to be a 24-7 activity which is quite a different ball game.”

She added: “I do not think we can use that it is going to be for children in need as a deciding factor because it’s simply the wrong building in the wrong place. None of us have any objection to helping children in need but it has to be the right building in the right place.”

The planning committee voted unanimously to refuse the planning application on the grounds that it would have been an over-development with a detrimental effect on a residential amenity and highway safety with inadequate parking spaces with concerns about entrance visibility for pedestrians.