Traffic impact sees property plan thrown out

Traffic impact sees property plan thrown out

By Gareth Dennison | 21/06/2021

Traffic impact sees property plan thrown out


A DEVELOPER’S claim that adding 196 properties to a narrow village would have only a “negligible” effect on traffic was ridiculed as the proposals were thrown out.

The Strata Homes plan for an estate south of Chapel Way and Lambrell Avenue in Kiveton Park had been set to add an estimated 400 daily vehicle movements.

Objector Cllr Dominic Beck said: “To say there would be a ‘negligible’ impact on the road network is insulting and not true. It’s akin to saying the Arctic is a bit nippy.

“Kiveton is distinct: it has one road in and one road out. This is very unusual for a village of its size and I believe the transport assessment and the council’s own interpretation of it does nothing to reflect this fact.

“The site is a large nature conservation area, home to a variety of animals the applicant’s own assessment references, including a family of deer.”

The proposal was an inappropriate expansion of a rural village which nearly everyone there was against, ward member Cllr Beck told last Thursday’s (10) planning board meeting.

Strata head of planning Claire Lindley noted that the principle of building housing was established because the land had been allocated as residential not only in the current local plan but in its predecessor, 1999’s unitary development plan.

Alterations had been made, she added, including adding more bungalows in relation to other property types, more pathways, and an amended road layout.

Ms Lindley said: “All the changes we have been asked to make through the planning process have been accommodated.

“This site provides an opportunity to deliver housing quickly within the borough. It is located in a sustainable location. Future residents won’t need to rely on cars.

“We are providing all Section 106 contributions that have been requested, totalling over £500,000.”

There were more than 100 objection letters, including MP Alexander Stafford. The board rejected the plans by five votes to four — going against the officers’ recommendation.

Board member Cllr Rose McNeely called for developers to be tied to providing actual facilities through Section 106, rather than simply amounts of money for school and doctor places.

“Schools are full, so it’s going to cost a parent more in taxis, travel and whatever,” she added. “GPs in the area are full.

“It sounds very good when money is offered but there’s no solution at the end of it. I think we need to be more robust in asking them to provide what is needed.”

Cllr Eve Rose Keenan added: “I don’t believe this development is taking proper care of the environment. I think it will be a serious loss to the biodiversity of the area.”


Sign up to our weekly newsletter delivered straight to your inbox

Spotted something we should know about?

Call our Newsdesk on 01709 803562
Or email
Message us on Facebook