Castle Gresley residents have claimed victory after plans for 70 affordable homes on a sloping site beset by flooding problems were rejected by councillors.

East Midlands Homes was behind the plans for the much-needed, cut-price housing on the site off Oak Close.

However, at a meeting last night (June 1) councillors felt that the almost complete lack of contributions from the developer towards health and education in the area – offsetting the impact of the scheme – made it totally unviable and unacceptable.

As a result, members of the South Derbyshire District Council planning committee unanimously rejected the proposed development, prompting cheers from the 30 residents who attended the meeting at Grove Hall in Swadlincote.

Financial contributions are typically made to schools and health services through legally binding Section 106 agreements – the bigger the scheme, the larger the impact and monies needed.

Steffan Saunders, the council's head of planning, told the meeting that the development could only afford to contribute £25,500 towards schools and health services in the area, despite requests for £874,000.

This was to create 11 spaces at Linton Primary School; 20 spots at The Pingle Academy; 246 new items at Swadlincote Library; and support for 175 more patients at Gresleydale Healthcare Centre.

The shortfall is partly due to the cost of providing affordable housing and flood management works totalling £123,000.

Mr Saunders said the drawbacks of the development were outweighed by its benefits of supplying affordable housing in an area with a proven need.

He said the site is one earmarked for development by the council, but for 55 homes – not 70.

Councillors said the drastic shortfall in contributions to support the impact the development would have on the area clearly showed that the scheme was not sustainable and could not be approved.

Cllr Dan Pegg told the meeting: "You can't keep building developments when there is no sustainability for things like schools, doctors and dentists.

"You have to wait six weeks for a dentist appointment and these are the things that are being missed. The surgery is already overflowing.

"It makes me irate that yet again we have not got an objection from county highways when we have got bin lorries mounting pavements and bin lorries flipping over."

Cllr Trevor Southerd said: "We need affordable housing but that doesn't mean affordable housing at any cost.

"When you look at the site it is going to be built on, I don't know how it was ever included in the Local Plan, it is astonishing.

"The measly £25,000 to be split between education and health, well I don't think they could even get a paracetamol for everyone with that damn thing.

"The community will bear the brunt of this and there is nothing good for the community in this, in my opinion."

Cllr Melanie Bridgen told the committee: "I am concerned about the lack of Section 106 contributions, it must be a sustainable development and provide for support and services to the area.

"I am also aware of the impact of developments on flooding and what we have here is a history of flooding in the area. The Derbyshire County Council flood team are having difficulties and I am told these issues are unresolved.

"I am not satisfied that these flood problems will not be aggravated.

"It is not a sustainable development and 70 homes is an excessive number."

Cllr Paul Dunn said the proposed contributions added up to a few hundred pounds per house on the scheme and "not even the price of a fence around your garden".

He said if this was all the scheme could afford "it was not a viable development in the first place".

Cllr Lisa Brown was concerned at the potential for the developer to win at appeal and said: "There is no question there is huge merit in providing affordable housing in South Derbyshire but not at any cost."

Mr Saunders told the committee that if they were to refuse the plans, it should be on the grounds of a lack of contributions towards health and education services, not flooding, with the county council and Severn Trent not objecting on that front.

He said there was "net betterment" from the scheme.

Mr Saunders said: "An objection linked to the non-provision of Section 106 would be reasonable.

"I wouldn't say an appeal would be successfully resisted but I would be less worried.

"The health and education authorities have made robust comments that the Section 106 is needed."

Cllr David Angliss said: "This is a patchwork of compromises and it is compromising too far. This isn't an acceptable development.

"It is compromising for those who will be living on the site and those who live near the site."

Speaking on behalf of the opposing residents, Adam Epkin, who said the scheme was "detrimental to the sustainability of the area".

He said construction traffic would present "a very real risk" to the lives of residents.

Mr Hepkin said: "We have no assurances that this development will not exacerbate the existing flooding.

"The schools and surgery are at capacity and dental practices are full and do not take in subsidised patients (non-paying or reduced payments through the NHS).

"We do not see the justification of a development of this size.

"We cannot and should not be expected to incorporate growth at this time."

Amanda Stubbs, on behalf of East Midlands Homes, said the scheme would help provide much-needed affordable housing in the Swadlincote South area.

She said this would include bungalows, which are not catered for in the council's own social housing stock.

Ms Stubbs said: "There is a demonstrated local need (for affordable housing) on a site which is allocated for housing.

"Alleviating the existing flood risk is a benefit for the local community."